Bitcoin Forum

It is well known that this forum is divided up into several cliques. Unfortunately this is a direct result of a tendency towards mob rule, and a system of might makes right that strips the individual of the ability to use this forum in peace free from harassment, threats, and intimidation. The forum trust system has become an unmitigated disaster, a textbook example of the failure of pure democracy, also known as mob rule.

The failure of the management of these forum systems have allowed for the worst types of personalities to maintain an iron grip over the control of these systems, and entrench a culture of nepotism, retaliation, and constant infighting which is antithetical to the user base being able to exercise their free use of the forum, free speech, and free trade that it offers.

The members of this mob rely on maintaining arbitrary unwritten rules in order to maintain a system of selective enforcement that enables them to stifle criticism, competition, and functions as a gate keeping mechanism under which none shall pass until the knee is bent and tribute is paid. The status quo is antithetical to everything Bitcoin was built to resist, and stands the original culture of this community on its head, making a total mockery of it. These reasons are why, today I introduce to you, The Objective Standards Guild.


Core tenets:

1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.

2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
 
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.

4. Users who follow these standards should be included in trust lists.

5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible.


There is no inherent hierarchy. Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. Using the avatar below and linking to this thread in your signature is encouraged. Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systemic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.


SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

qwk
monkeynuts
Ticked
figmentofmyass
BayAreaCoins
Lesbian Cow
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
bill gator
LoyceV
eddie13
hacker1001101001
DdmrDdmr
iCEBREAKER


SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~smoothie
~BitcoinEXpress
~Vod
~Foxpup
~ibminer
~TMAN
~Lauda
~Timelord2067
~TheNewAnon135246
~mindrust
~cryptodevil
~suchmoon
~owlcatz
~nutildah
~tmfp
~yahoo62278
~Last of the V8s
~Lutpin
~TwitchySeal
~bob123
~marlboroza
~blurryeyed
~nullius
~JollyGood
~mosprognoz
~DireWolfM14

EDIT YOUR TRUST LIST HERE (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust)




EDIT:

In a pure democracy, I expect each adult to have one vote. On the forum, voting power depends on earned Merits, so it can't be a pure democracy.

Allow me to add some links to your lists:
     1. Legendary iCEBREAKER (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=17501) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=17501)  +6 / =0 / -2) (70 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/17501.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//17501.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=iCEBREAKER))
     2. Donator qwk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24140) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=24140)  +16 / =1 / -0) (1434 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/24140.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//24140.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=qwk))
     3. Legendary monkeynuts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=81962) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=81962)  +31 / =1 / -0) (258 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/81962.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//81962.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=monkeynuts))
     4. Sr. Member Ticked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=129764) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=129764)  +26 / =0 / -0) (207 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/129764.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//129764.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Ticked))
     5. Legendary figmentofmyass (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=136484) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=136484) neutral) (607 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/136484.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//136484.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=figmentofmyass))
     6. Legendary BayAreaCoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=137773) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137773)  +13 / =0 / -0) (79 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/137773.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//137773.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=BayAreaCoins))
     7. Legendary Lesbian Cow (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=206143) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=206143)  +43 / =0 / -0) (567 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/206143.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//206143.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lesbian Cow))
     8. Legendary Rmcdermott927 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=289011) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=289011)  +22 / =1 / -0) (51 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/289011.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//289011.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Rmcdermott927))
     9. Hero Member teeGUMES (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=307884) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=307884)  +11 / =3 / -1) (487 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/307884.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//307884.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=teeGUMES))
    10. Legendary bill gator (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=370611) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=370611)  +18 / =3 / -9) (542 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/370611.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//370611.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=bill gator))
    11. Legendary LoyceV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=459836)  +26 / =2 / -0) (4759 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/459836.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//459836.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=LoyceV))
    12. Legendary eddie13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=580327) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=580327)  +2 / =1 / -0) (925 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/580327.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//580327.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=eddie13))
    13. Sr. Member hacker1001101001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1021758)  +6 / =1 / -3) (251 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1021758.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//1021758.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=hacker1001101001))
    14. Hero Member DdmrDdmr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1582324) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1582324)  +5 / =0 / -0) (3312 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1582324.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//1582324.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=DdmrDdmr))

     1. Legendary smoothie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25960) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=25960)  +24 / =1 / -0) (18 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/25960.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//25960.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=smoothie))
     2. Legendary BitcoinEXpress (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=29445) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=29445) neutral) (8 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/29445.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//29445.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=BitcoinEXpress))
     3. Legendary Vod (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747)  +28 / =2 / -2) (1416 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/30747.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//30747.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Vod))
     4. Legendary Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=55384)  +3 / =0 / -0) (856 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/55384.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//55384.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Foxpup))
     5. Legendary ibminer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=84866) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=84866)  +5 / =0 / -0) (664 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/84866.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//84866.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=ibminer))
     6. Legendary TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=98986)  +28 / =0 / -2) (1288 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/98986.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//98986.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TMAN))
     7. Legendary Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872)  +34 / =2 / -0) (1390 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/101872.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//101872.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda))
     8. Legendary Timelord2067 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=131361) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=131361)  +8 / =4 / -1) (348 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/131361.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//131361.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067))
     9. Legendary TheNewAnon135246 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=153656) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=153656)  +21 / =0 / -0) (850 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/153656.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//153656.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TheNewAnon135246))
    10. Legendary mindrust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=176777) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=176777) neutral) (810 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/176777.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//176777.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=mindrust))
    11. Legendary cryptodevil (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224980) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224980)  +9 / =0 / -1) (167 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/224980.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//224980.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=cryptodevil))
    12. Legendary suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=234771)  +14 / =0 / -0) (3703 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/234771.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//234771.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=suchmoon))
    13. Legendary owlcatz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=313016) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=313016)  +44 / =0 / -1) (278 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/313016.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//313016.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=owlcatz))
    14. Legendary nutildah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=317618)  +5 / =0 / -0) (1722 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/317618.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//317618.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=nutildah))
    15. Legendary tmfp (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=351569) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=351569)  +8 / =0 / -0) (620 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/351569.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//351569.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=tmfp))
    16. Legendary yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355846)  +19 / =2 / -0) (1225 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/355846.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//355846.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=yahoo62278))
    17. Legendary Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=479624)  +6 / =0 / -1) (2409 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/479624.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//479624.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Last of the V8s))
    18. Copper Member Lutpin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=520313) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=520313)  +28 / =1 / -1) (819 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/520313.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//520313.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lutpin))
    19. Legendary TwitchySeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=538922) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=538922)  +7 / =1 / -0) (532 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/538922.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//538922.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TwitchySeal))
    20. Legendary bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=579628) neutral) (1403 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/579628.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//579628.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=bob123))
    21. Legendary marlboroza (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=787736)  +14 / =0 / -0) (1343 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/787736.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//787736.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=marlboroza))
    22. Full Member blurryeyed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=885996) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=885996)  +1 / =5 / -0) (17 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/885996.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//885996.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=blurryeyed))
    23. Copper Member nullius (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=976210)  +4 / =2 / -0) (1221 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/976210.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//976210.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=nullius))
    24. Hero Member JollyGood (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016855) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855)  +10 / =0 / -0) (469 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1016855.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//1016855.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=JollyGood))
    25. Sr. Member mosprognoz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1094569) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1094569)  +6 / =1 / -1) (161 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1094569.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//1094569.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=mosprognoz))
    26. Copper Member DireWolfM14 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2003859) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2003859)  +16 / =1 / -0) (1343 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2003859.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h//2003859.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=DireWolfM14))
(sorry, this script didn't include links to custom Trust lists, and I have to go now. I'll add them later) Done.

Allow my to promote my topic here: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0).

I disagree, it is even worse. All that is, is another layer of democracy and enables even more nepotism. Merits are ironically do not support a meritocracy, but are more often used as pats on the head for people that agree with their positions, and an additional method of gatekeeping.

Alright, so this looks to me like TECSHARE doesn't like a particular clique, so he's recommending (or even creating) his own--and at the same time is deriding the formation of cliques.  A'ight, then.

I'd say you're going a bit overboard with that statement, and I'd also suggest that you have yet to formulate any written, non-arbitrary rules for anyone to go by, if such a thing were even feasible.  Ever try to herd cats?  And in any case, most of us human beings tend to function in life without a rulebook of our own.  Yes, there are written laws handed down from the mountain of government, but that's another story. 

Would you prefer that the rules of bitcointalk be the be-all, end-all guide for conduct on the forum?  If you say yes, I'd point out that scamming is allowed here and yet I don't think an ethical person would condone that. 

Anyway, any community forms standards over time.  As an example, that's how account selling got to be frowned upon, though not everyone agrees that it's bad for the forum or could increase scams.  And that's fine, we're all free to disagree about that--but DT members should be free to tag account sellers, too.  And if sentiment about account sales turned 180 degrees, any DT members tagging account sellers would probably be excluded from trust lists and the problem would go away on its own.

TECSHARE, I understand your words but there seems to be some dissonance and I'm not exactly clear what you want to accomplish with those recommended inclusions/exclusions other than forming another set of standards which are anything but clear.  In fact, I can't see into your brain so I don't know what they are.  Maybe if you wrote them down?

There is no particular clique, he just listed everyone that has excluded him from their trust list (most likely have valid reasons). I have no relationship with well over 90% of the people in his list.

lol, this will probably land me on one or two more shitlists. :-X


are those standards now set in stone? trust abuse and witch hunts are rampant, but do they have to be? maybe not. maybe TECSHARE is onto something.


he did. see "core tenets". (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53868501#msg53868501) the standards are very clear to me. ie no red tags based on opinions and unproven accusations + defend people from trust abuse in the face of unproven accusations.

i support the core tenets. i've seen countless people run off the forum by rampant trust abuse and petty reputation drama. it's getting old.

i can't give up my avatar or signature but i can put a short link in my personal message. something like "Objective Standards Guild: https://bit.ly/2P79Dxh"

If those are his standards then I'd love to hear why I need to be on his distrust list. I have never left negative feedback based someone's opinions or unproven accusations. If TECSHARE thinks I have I would love to see him point out which negative feedback/flag support is wrong and I'd happily correct it. The list in the OP is just his personal witch hunt, nothing more.

I think we agree on this :P

I think that's intentional: you can't have a public forum with equal voting power for all 2.7 million accounts, without KYC. And even with KYC, it makes sense that new members don't instantly get voting power (after all, if you move to another country, you can't just go and vote in the next election).
From what I've seen, I expect theymos to be all in for a better system, but unfortunately I haven't seen a better system yet.

That's one of the main reasons why I always say this:

LOLOLOL. Alright, TECSHARE, when you see this don't flame me to death.  My brain saw the "violation of contractual agreement" part and blanked out because I've seen you write it so many times.

I do think those tenets a bit too stringent, however.  There are shady things that go on here that won't be represented by documented theft or any violation of a contract, so there are going to be negs left which won't (and can't) necessarily be kept to a minimum.

Scammers are very sneaky, they're rampant, and we're dealing with the internet here where people are pretty anonymous.  I'd say the standards for getting a neg on this forum ought to be relatively relaxed.  I'm not saying there isn't trust abuse going on, because there is.  TMAN is a recent example of that, and he got called out for it.  That kind of feedback that he left for TECSHARE needs to stop in general IMO.

Not on mine.  I can always agree to disagree with someone on most issues.  And thank you for redirecting me to TS's list.  

And no, I don't think community standards are set in stone, nor that they should include trust abuse or leaving negs for disagreements.  I don't think that's become acceptable, and Theymos even gave some guidance on that a while back when he asked everyone to bury their hatchets.

We really need an amnesty here, it’s sad to see so many DT members distrusting each other. Most of the DT’s who ~ each other don’t do it because they actually distrust them, it’s done because of disagreements or falling outs.

I really think everybody should have a long, good look at their trust settings & remove anybody who they’ve ~ that isn’t untrustworthy.

Life’s too short guys!

Just off to look at my exclusions to see if anybody deserves to be removed from it.

Have a good day guys!

You had me until here. The person who posts feedback like this:

Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features.

A good example of red-tagging people for opinions. Not a good example of "standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way".

I guess it's a step up from calls to remove the tagging system altogether, but I still don't see how this attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" system can encompass all the things people can currently be tagged for.  As an example, tags for trolls and disinformation agents would not be able to co-exist with your criteria.  If someone is deliberately spreading disinformation, such actions are dishonest, unacceptable behaviour.  Accounts responsible should be tagged as such.

I don't care to make this about me when it's so obviously all about you.  But, do provide me with one instance, just one where I've tagged or flagged someone without providing evidence.

What I'm really trying to do here is provide "an objective and observable way" to prove your hypocrisy.  You didn't add me to your exclusion list because of inappropriate  tags or flags, you excluded me because I excluded you.  It was retaliation.  Prove me wrong?

Egregious trolls should be reported to moderators. Red-tagging trolls just creates more drama and doesn't solve trolling at all.

If you insist on tagging liars, neutral tag should be enough unless they actually engage in deceptive trading practices.

I think that could certainly be seen as supporting knowingly a scam or trolling.

Doomad seems to be clearly saying this.

If he was a known bag holder of dash at the time and trying to dupe others into investing under knowingly deceptive false information that is scamming.

Just not sure why you latched onto that one considering the context red tags are currently used.

This is okay as a first step for sure but removal of tagging is the only long term fix because those acting sensibly with red tags now may not always do so once they feel fully entrenched.

I would add ~ to any member opposing the removal of tags and reliance upon The obective standards of the flagging system

perhaps 2 lists are best one of your own choosing and one submitted by more hardcore reformists that want to see a real long term move to flags and removal of tagging entirely.

Anyone that wants tagging retained should be ~

They have been given ample opportunity to present a case to defend against it being incredibly net negative and they have not been able to

therefore their obsession with retaining it is likely to leverage the subjectivity there for personal retribution and gain.

I would say that it can be useful to remove from DT some of the most abusive members but long term absolute removal of the potential to abuse rather than the current abusers.

Better to build a union of members that can ensure that fair and transparent standards are applied to all members equally.

for now ~ thepharmacist and loyceV those are merely spreading false information and deliberately fighting against those objective standards.

~ quicksellout7 should be removed as a matter of principle ( although he should be supporting this so he does not have to be controlled by lauda saving that red tag over pn7 forever , along with nulliusssssssss, jjg

I would give benefit of the doubt to a few others that seem to wish for a level playing field for all.

Not sure I would remove timelord at this time. I mean I have not heard his thoughts on moving to a more objective standard.

I think It will be tricky to get consensus for this but all members should wish to move to an objective set of standards. The only ones that do not can not even present a case for their views that stands up to scrutiny in the context being net positive for the forum.

I think to garner widespread support you would require consensus for the included excluded list. Best to focus on just forming a union of those that want an end to red tags and move to the flagging system.

Inclusions could be Royce , AMN,  mikey, anyone that can be observed to want objective standards or who makes an effort to treat members equally

Personal squabbles should probably be out aside if they will support a foundation of objective standards as a base for the trust system.

LOL. This did immediately come to mind when I read the OP in this thread.

Pretty objectively certain this is why TS likes him:


I'd like to see what TECSHARE's trust rating is at default trust compared to what it will be when including and excluding those in his SUGGESTIONS.

And I would also like to know who gets to decide what counts as an "objective standard".

Do you even know what the word "objective" means?  And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?  

Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob".

Subjectively, you're a tool (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tool). That's just my opinion though.

Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms.

BTW, how did you come up with that image??
Looks a bit like a QS (QuickSeller) and OG (OgNasty) combined in the logo.. lol  are they the leaders of this "guild"??  :P

They don't need to be TS set of objective criteria essentially. But they seem reaonable for a trust system to prevent scamming

There will always be some subjectivity it is unavoidable.

These are insoluble problems an entirely subjective system that is wide open to such a crazy variance in views as to what red tags are used for

* members are treated equally and with consistency

* free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion

* high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals

* to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust

* prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system

* prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots


* preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about
lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone.


and probably many other insoluble problems then the entirely subjective, gamed and manipulated tagging system must be abolished.

There is no net gain to retaining it

Objectivity need not be any one person's ideas ...it simply needs to be a set of definable solid points or stipulations that all members are measured against equally. Those not wishing for all members to be fairly measured against object rules or criteria need to be watched closely.

It seems sensible to use the trust system to warn people about those that have demonstrated they are a direct financial threat.

I though the same qs og symbol at first glance.

As expected the usual red nose, red assed clan shows up in force to try to manage any independent thought into a narrative in their favor. Let the butt hurt flow through you Bozonians.



AHHH I seee! I AM the one on a witch hunt now! That is a blatant lie. You are another two bit power tripping antagonistic forum cop. One quick scan over just the first page of your left ratings explains why you are on the suggested exclusion list. You are firmly within the clown car.



Only if you refuse to let go of the delusion that mass tagging is going to change anything. The compulsion to tag absolutely everyone for any infraction is not only self serving and creating unnecessary conflict, it is counter productive. Con artists return in seconds with a bought account, legitimate users caught up in the dragnet leave and never come back.

It takes a lot of time and effort to build a reputation here just to have obsessive compulsive control freaks shit all over it for nothing more than to make themselves feel useful. It accomplishes NOTHING for the community, and in fact is destructive and not constructive. Past observable evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, the returns on negative rating users is quite diminished, and worse serves as cover for abuse. Additionally all the drama over petty bullshit allows ACTUAL con artists that fall under those objective standards to hide in the drama and signal noise created by tagging users for petty bullshit.

The question is not if every scammer is going to be caught and tagged, because it is absolutely a fact that is not going to happen regardless. The question is, is it worth constantly creating drama, conflict, covering up abuse, and driving away good users in exchange for getting those that fall out side of these standards? I think it is clear, it is not worth it. Of course for obsessive compulsive control freaks mass tagging people, it was never about serving the community, it was always about serving their own ulterior motives, egos and compulsions.



Absolutely, just as negative ratings were intended to mark scammers and not as a tool to serve ulterior motives and petty vendettas. Unfortunately, like negative ratings, merit has become not just a filter to keep out spammers and shit posters, but a method for those in control of the current system to use it to reinforce their own control, just for the sake of being in charge of it to serve their own ulterior motives.



It doesn't. The point is there are diminishing returns on tagging people past a certain point. The real question is it worth it to subject everyone to this potential abuse in order to get those grey area cases? I don't think so. I think it is counterproductive.





The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Am I a hypocrite? How many negative ratings have I left for people out side of these standards? You seem to be confusing speech with action, but what is new? The clown car riders are big fans of projecting their flaws on to others. Last I checked I have several ratings on my page based in nothing more than butt hurt story time, and those that left them refuse to substantiate them. The trust system is designed to be a penalty for fraudulent behavior, claiming that having this penalty used against me is "losing no freedoms" is asinine, not that I expect a logical argument from you.

exclusions aren't just about whether you trust someone (eg in a trade). they indicate whether you trust someone else's judgment (eg about their inclusions) and their use of feedback.

anarchist societies practice ostracization as a non-violent means to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. that's all TECSHARE is encouraging---the use of non-violent consensus to ostracize bad actors. this is the only say that individuals have in a group that operates by general consensus.


humans are subjective, no escaping that. does that mean we can't strive towards objective standards?

None of this is anything all the ones complaining here don't do already anyway. They just want to cry about it when they are on the other side of it. They can exclude and include people freely, but when I do it I am "manipulating the trust system".

Manipulate deez.

See, I don't think any good users are being driven away from the forum because of red-tagging.  And if they're scammers or otherwise unsavory members, good riddance.  The only member I can think of who left because of some red was aTriz and his alt.  Bill gator almost left, but I don't think he disappeared completely--and I happen to like him and thought he probably shouldn't have gotten tagged. 

I don't think putting a big red warning on a potential or actual scammer is accomplishing nothing, by the way.  Sure, there are some members who are trying to build their reputation by doing so, but as long as they get it right I don't have a problem with the motivation.  I started tagging account sellers after I got scammed back in 2016, when it became obvious to me how harmful sales of high-ranked, green-trusted accounts could be--not because I wanted to get on DT.  I never thought that would happen and was absolutely shocked when I got put on it.

I've also admitted tagging shitposters was a bad idea, which is also something I used to do right up until the creation of the merit system.  Those feedbacks have been deleted, though, and that practice has essentially been abolished.

Anyway, I partially agree about the objective standards, but there's no getting around the fact that some subjectivity is going to have to creep in somewhere.  It always does and there's no getting around it.

That's a big if.

>Complains about harassment
>Aggressive and insulting in every post

>Complains about drama
>Opens a new topic every time he has a post deleted

>Wants an objective standard for inclusion on trust lists
>Includes anyone on DT1 if they include him back

---

Imma just leave this here

indeed, people are even getting DT2 negative trust just for adding/excluding people from their trust list. the standards on the reputation board are completely out of control. a recent example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487377;dt

at this point, a "scam buster" need only make an unproven or arbitrary accusation, point to the accusation in a trust page reference, and get a few of his buddies to agree---that's the standard for red trust now. proof of wrongdoing is never a requirement.


full quote, emphasis mine:

Ah yes, more projection and another lame attempt at managing the narrative by an obvious alt. Not "harassment", trust system abuse. I want an objective standard for leaving negative ratings. I by far don't include anyone who includes me back, and of course this is the same refrain used when accusing me of "manipulating the trust system".

Any mutual inclusions I have are proof of malfeasance, and any mutual inclusions the ones accusing me of this have are justified, and they need not explain because it is their right to include who they like. If I include some one and they later include me I was "fishing for mutual inclusions". If some one adds me and I later add them I am "just adding anyone who includes me". This same nebulous standard can be applied to LITERALLY anyone on the default trust list, but of course when I make choices the clown car doesn't like, it is a crime that must be punished.

Like I said, manipulate deez.

There has been a problem of cliques becoming tribes that rival one another and I think this is something that needs to be addressed.

In the past there has been a problem of people being associated with or has supported certain people previously get away with outright fraud without suffering any kind of consequences. I am not even talking about the most ‘famous’ people who give out a lot of ratings. I think this is not a good thing and will lead to the community shrinking over the long term. This is in addition to the ethics of basically admitting to committing fraud and suffering no consequences.

There does need to remain in place a mechanism to warn others of behavior consistent with future scam attempts (red flags). I won’t comment on the specifics of the trust list proposed in the OP, there are some that I don’t really know.

This has always been the case. You quoted and re-quoted the word "proactive" -- this means taking action before people have actually been scammed. As such, you can't have "proof" of an event that hasn't yet happened.

Tags and Level 1 flags are good for this sort of thing. You and TS don't have to approve of it, but you are in the vast minority here.

I think people like you depend on convincing people like us we are in the minority, because the fact is YOU are in the vast minority. The only difference is your minority props each other up to enable this abuse while the majority is intimidated into staying silent. If it wasn't true all of you Bozonians wouldn't be trying so desperately hard to convince us otherwise and trying to silence us with retaliation for speaking about it.

The only places with preemptive policing are totalitarian governments where individuals have little to no freedoms. This isn't something we should be emulating no matter how much you jerk yourself off about how great you are and convince yourself you are stopping so many scams. You aren't stopping shit and this behavior is self serving.

Yeah, shame on me for tagging people who are trying to scam others by running fake ICOs. Such power trip.

1. Quoting theymos should be avoided. If you create a system full of holes that enable, reward, entrench abuse and manipulation. Leading to the insoluble problems I have just listed that no member can refute and have not been able to when challenges multiple times. Then however well intentioned that 'advice' is, it is best ignored. Rather best engage in debate based upon the strengths of points being made and scrutinized upon their own merit.

2. The proactive part is the prime weskeness to this system. All of the insoluble problems originate from the subjectivity that resides there. Whether it's drinking lemonade that makes you likely to scam or presenting observable evidence of DT prior scamming that makes you a scammer. The list of traits that mean you are obviously about to scam someone opens the entire board up to being a scammer. That is not helpful.

3. The clear and proven fact no member has been able to provide 1 real scenario where tagging is net postive to the forum over moving to the flagging system it is strange and telling as to why the same people keep voicing debunked arguments to retain the entirely subjective mess of tagging.

The " in the minority" claim is again quite amusing. The very tiny Meta board is dominated by those that are prime beneficiaries of the broken merit and trust systems.  Therefore claiming change to a transparent and objective set of standards is unpopular to this micro fragment of the board is some how a clear indication of the entire forums opinion is hilarious.

 The entire pathetic defence to retain tags is

Proactive scamming behaviors, the hilarious thing is that type 1 flags could be given to those that have not yet scammed but are clearly directly engaging in behaviors that strongly suggest they are setting up a scam or attempting to scam.  

Sorry but if you don't have any kind of evidence to suggest direct financial threat then you have no case. Sorry but the lemonade drinkers, the whistle blowers, those that have opinions you don't like, those with genuine competing businesses here to your own, or are more deserving to the sig spots you are hogging. Then sorry they will not be punished and incorrectly tagged as potential scammers.

I see a lot of posts as usual from a lot of people that pump out large passages of text that just crumble into nothing once mild scrutiny is placed upon it.  

Theymos said, I believe, you're in the minority on meta board,  you're a troll, I will avoid your inviolable truths...Is not working.

It boils down to : we want the power to give people scam tags for liking lemonade and we certainly want the power to tag people for whistle blowing on our past indiscretions and pointing out our arguments are full of gaping holes.

This union will not be efficient because many will disagree on the specific inclusions exclusions. The only union should be a move to transparent objective standards. Once that is taken care of the minor petty squabbles and who includes / excludes who becomes largely irrelevant. Objective standards do not bend to the will of corrupt members.

Forget personal previous squabbles and do what Is undeniably best for the forum. All past pathetic rivalries and largely trivial ego battles should be dropped.

Making it personal is not the way forward If you really want what is Best for the forum going forward.


Read understand accept support.

Why the inclusion of BitcoinEXpress there?
He has barely been active in the last few years. And even before that, I doubt he'd ever said anything outside of trolling.

This is the issue people that may agree with the move to a transparent objective standard will not perfectly align with the inclusions exclusions in the OP which may prevent then joining the greater cause.

What if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test)?
I've tagged many accounts like this one (https://archive.is/IENOi). They spam their scam because people keep falling for it. Do you agree on tagging those before a victim complains about this particular user and website? One could argue it's an innocent new account that truely "provides a unique opportunity", but I've been around long enough to go with the duck approach.

Nutidah you need not make the debate hinge upon your perception of Tecshare and his possible motives.

Theymos you would think would realise you design based on the assumption people will act and behave in a manner that is optimally selfish. He seems to have created a system that relies upon members selflessly considering the best interests of others.

The points that you make again here are debunked as solid points.

The point that DT members wish to retain the subjective power than enables them to create the insoluble problems we have established ( nobody has presented any credible way to attempt to solve them) is actually a negative and entirely predictable view that raises the need for change to a higher urgency. I mean stating a group of people favoring the retention of power they leverage for their own personal gain,  is supporting the argument to move to a set of transparent standards that will prevent such gaming and abuse, and solve the serious currently insoluble problems mentioned.

People can and have freely admitted tagging people for presenting observable events and facts regarding peoples post histories. If that has happened to techshare or not is impossible to prove, but looks highly probably from the timing of the tags.  The fact that it is possible currently to apply tags for giving opinions demonstrates that a strong threat to free speech exists. This is a very serious issue on a forum like this or any forum.


I see no need for this thread to be detailed and the focus shifted entirely to individual or specific personal experiences other than to provide an example of a point is refuted.

All members opposing the requirement of strong objective evidence that demonstrates scamming, or direct attempts to scam, or strong evidence to suggest setting up a future  scam, or any direct financially motivated wrongdoing without being able to demonstrate a clear net positive case for doing so should be treated with extreme caution.

Present the scenario where subjective tagging is net positive for the forum over moving to an objective standards based flagging system with quality warnings grounded in objective strong evidence of scamming attempting to scam or setting up a future scam. Or else admit your opinions are based only upon your desires to retain the power you derive from the broken, abused subjective tagging system.

The time for personal disputes is done. They can not be solved with temp measures and pushing certain included excludes. The transparent objective standards that will ensure fair treatment of all members will remove the need to make that such a huge problem and end a huge proportion of endless infighting among a group of people that largely pose no threat in terms of scamming.

On one hand I agree that there are far too many frivolous ratings being sent. Ratings based on opinions or because of arguments, because of a clash of personalities, because of differing idea or views, trolling, and so forth, are both inappropriate and counter productive. They cheapen the entire point of the trust system, and serve more as a punishment against the person rather than a useful indicator of trustworthiness.

However, as Loyce has pointed out above, there are plenty of examples of accounts being correctly red tagged without yet having stolen anything or violated any contracts. If your entire ICO is plagiarized, then you are not a legitimate project. If you are advertising impossible ROIs, then you are not a legitimate project. If you are asking for users to enter their seed, enter their private keys, deposit before they are allowed to withdraw, and so on, then you are a scammer. I disagree that we should be letting these users freely peddle their scams when we have the ability to pre-emptively tag them.

Cliques are obviously going to develop anywhere and people make friends just as they do enemies. There's nothing wrong with that but people are becoming biased to certain things especially if they're pally with people and the reporting of users posts as off topic when it was one of their buddies that took it off topic in the first place is a perfect example of that and people need to knock it off. If people don't like each other they should either just ignore them or keep their beefs out of every other thread and keep it confined to Reputation or something because threads going off topic is out of hand.


Some will leave, but what about all those users that are given negative that don't deserve it? If you haven't got a thick enough skin or feel like the forum has betrayed you in some way you would have every right to think fuck it and leave and this probably happens more to newer members than older ones. Neither shouldn't have to accept it or just grin and bear it. You might not get along with certain people and not like their behaviour but obviously users like tecshare and timelord don't deserve negative feedback as much as you might dislike them. If you're not a scammer or there's no very strong suspicion that you are one then people shouldn't be leaving negative feedback. The only exception I would possibly make is for the full time trolls who are only here to be disruptive, but again and as I've said before, I think people are stretching the definition of a troll and tagging people who they just don't agree with.


It's helpful, especially to newbies, or at least it was more so before the flags, but people should be responsible for their own money I guess. I honestly don't know whether it would be worth just getting rid of negative feedback for all the drama that's involved with it, but it would lead to a lot more people getting scammed but that's the compromise.


Unless you can somehow make all mods part of a hive mind then there's always going to be difference of opinion in enforcing the rules, all you can do is enforce them to the best of your ability, but one person may think someone is trolling whereas the other doesn't. Some people think their posts are on topic when they're clearly not and when there's humans involved in either scenario you're going to get differences of opinion.

That would safety come under directly financially dangerous behaviors. Those would be type 1 flag.  So long as the behavior is directly opening people up to being scammed or they look to be setting up other members to be directly financially vulnerable then they would get a type 1 flag.

It is the completely frivolous red tags that are for drinking lemonade or having a different opinion, or anything that results from a personality clash.

There would still exist a sensible credible and valuable warning for people that directly and clearly look to be attempting or setting up a scam.

We have to weigh that against the problems such a move will resolve.

What the hell is this?

Did you suggest users to include someone because of "your standards" and then you suggested them to not include them because someone told you that this isn't "by your standards"?

Does it mean iCEBREAKER should be excluded or simply not included?

Besides, you fail at number 1:


1) you included account iCEBREAKER who abused trust and tagged someone without bringing any evidence of theft, contract violation...

1 a) as Icebreaker was/is in your trust network, there is no chance that you didn't notice that negative on nutildah's trust page therefore you don't care about anything you want others to care about, only thing you care about is your ass, that's why this thread

I don't even want to read the rest of thread.

---

It just shows very poor judgement and this is what should be in topic of this thread:

~TECSHARE

I would be in complete agreement with this, but I don't think this is what TECSHARE is proposing. Without putting words in his mouth, he seems to be arguing for not tagging anyone until after a scam is committed:

He is butthurt, that's why,


@TECSHARE are you going to remove BayAreaCoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=137773) and suggest others to do it the same way you suggested other inclusions/exclusions:

https://i.imgur.com/skzpJmt.png

Unless you are suggesting that all forum members should follow "your standards" and whenever they tag someone who scammed someone, to write:
"scammer. This user reminds me of the user "TECSHARE". Just trowing that out there"  ??? ??? ???

Are you suggesting that users should include BayAreaCoins because:

https://i.imgur.com/OHzk3H2.png

THIS IS MODERATION ISSUE! NOT TRUST ISSUE! TRUST ABUSE!

This thread just beats all the crap you have been posting for the last 9 5 <insert number> years!

Awesome, as its core members are all representing, the Clown Car is fully formed!

- MOB RULE
- STAZI POLICE
- GESTAPPO TACTICS
- CHILL EFFECT

GO!!!!

But I would really like to understand this seemingly crucial aspect, if TS could address it I would be most appreciative:


Seems that if are short of court-produced documentation, it could potentially be a highly subjective matter.

Without Tecshare commenting I'm not sure.

But where people or ico's are placing members in direct financial danger then It would be pre-emptive to call then scammers. However, it would not be pre-emptive to place a warning that says they are posing a direct financial danger. That is objective, if they are asking members to enter their private keys.

Removing all subjectivity as type 2 and 3 flags pretty much do, solve that huge list of insoluble problems that are hugely damaging to the forum. This is a huge positive.

However, they do not offer any protection against those that are attempting to scam or setting up for a scam. Type 1 flags offer the potential four an optimal solution to that. Behaviors that strongly and clearly are asking or instructing members to place themselves in a highly vulnerable position. Then that is a clearly definable and valid reason they should have type 1 flag.

We should view this as more of a huge reduction in subjectivity. Or rather a drastic increase in accuracy and credibility.

It is a win win. You solve all of the insoluble damaging problems and increase the quality, accuracy and credibility of the trust system.

It is imho not essential to bring it down to a personal level and that is long term not useful. If the system is not wide open to subjectivity and it is not possible to act irresponsibly or abuse it for personal disputes. Then most of the problems we have now vanish

TS suggesting moving to the flagging system is being detailed by speculations on his own personal motivations. This is irrelevant.  Regardless of who you are and what your agenda is, you will be held accountable and held to the same standards as everyone else.

All this searching back through red trust histories to see if someone ever left a frivolous tag to debunk his core suggestion is bogus. If nobody has a perfect tagging record then you can only select those that are least frivolous. This is why I don't think you need to focus on that too much as again it will be contentious and consensus will not be possible.

Consensus only needs be reached that you want the most net positive or optimal solution for the forum going forward.

I support rhe aim of this thread and will join. I think just garnering support for a move to the flagging and greatly reduced subjectivity is better than trying to reach consensus on a precise trust list. The list is far less important if The system ensures responsible and reliable warnings.

you're conveniently ignoring the part (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53873086#msg53873086) where "scam busting" should require the overwhelming consensus of the community.

there is obviously no overwhelming consensus behind you, hence the never-ending and vitriolic fighting on the reputation board. you guys are very clearly "creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth." (-theymos)


good luck proving that, lol. a handful of self-proclaimed "scam busters" on the reputation board does not represent the vast majority of board members.  ::)

the vast majority of board members neglect to use their trust list (perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps because they think it's pointless when there is already an existing power structure, perhaps out of fear of retribution). that doesn't give you the right to speak for all those people! this situation is just a holdover from the original DT system since hardly anyone utilizes trust lists. i'm hoping we can encourage others to speak up. (if only with their trust lists)

i've been around a lot longer than many of these "scam busters". i have avoided doing business on bitcointalk all these years for 2 reasons:

1. going back to 2013, i've seen countless people run off the forum by unjustified trust abuse and public attacks
2. the forum's general tolerance of doxxing

i've ignored the reputation board and neglected my trust list until very recently for those reasons too. countless other people (like me) have opinions on these matters but do not share them, for obvious reasons. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225901.msg53852876#msg53852876)

props to TECSHARE for consistent willingness to speak out against rampant abuse. most people in his position would just disappear from the forum in the face of such concerted attacks by abusive DT members.  if not for him, i wouldn't be here---i'd be staying silent for fear of retribution from DT. (unsurprisingly, i've already had multiple of you self-styled DT "scam busters" arbitrarily publicly attack me (unprovoked) after starting to share my opinions in "reputation" last month. i have no doubt this will continue)

yet if i weren't in this thread today (or on the reputation board last month) arguing my views, nutildah & co would be claiming that i was part of the "vast majority" supporting his scam busting. obviously nothing could be further from the truth!

see how you wrongfully take ownership of millions of board members' opinions by claiming you have their support? you don't. a handful of people who are active in meta/reputation trading trust inclusions does not translate to overwhelming support of the community!


it is impossible to entirely remove subjectivity from human matters. we aren't gods. stop using that as a basis to argue that we shouldn't have any standards at all.

TECSHARE is simply encouraging us to move away from a system with zero standards, towards one with more objective standards.

will it achieve perfection? no. will there still be drama as long as red tags exist? yes. these aren't good reasons to stifle progress towards a better system with less trust abuse.

Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable and observant as you. Also you don't need to use your tagging activities as a form of ego masturbation because you are not emotionally a sad child that needs to get their self value from lording over others.

The question is not if the tags are some times correct or not, the question is, is the benefit worth the the cost of opening up an ambiguous method of trust system abuse that itself can help protect and conceal scams. Most people don't have the ability, time, or expertise to tell the difference, and that leaves people just taking the word of the accuser at face value regardless of the validity of the accusation.



I am sure Mao killed lots of bad people that were criminals. No one says, "there are examples of him correctly killing people that deserved it", because the problem is all the collateral damage and innocents caught up in it. Again, the question is not if people are correct some times or even most of the time. The question is, is the damage created by allowing such an arbitrary standard worth the minimal amount of impact the "correct" ratings have? I don't think so.

People who aren't doing this basic level of due diligence are just on borrowed time until they are robbed and no amount of shitting out tags is going to stop them from getting stolen from. Also doing so creates a false sense of security that the forum is moderated protected against such things. Then there are the people who use it to punish people bringing their own crimes to light and to discredit those accusations. Also the negative rating spam effectively dilutes the value of leaving a negative, because it is so common people learn to disregard it. All this ends up being is signal noise. Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors.



This is exactly why I am advocating for an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating. IMO this is the last possible way to salvage the tagging system beyond just scrapping negatives entirely. I warned Theymos leaving so much room for ambiguity would mean the failure of the system, but he was intent in his belief that it would work.

The objective standards I am referring to are meant to apply to negative ratings. The forum rules are usually less ambiguous, but that is another issue. Perhaps all the mods could get Borg implants?




You know facts. Transaction IDs. Receipts. Tracking numbers. Documentation. I know it is a hard concept.




I left it up there because I knew if I just erased it you Bozonians would try to claim I was hiding something. Serves me right for making appropriate adjustments. I should know better. Like I have said before, there is no road to redemption with you people, it doesn't matter what I do you will invent some story around it to spin it to attack your targets. And you pretend to wonder why I am so obstinate and resistant to pretty much anything you say. I am just so unreasonable!

For someone who claims to be against "creating more drama" you sure don't mind the dramatic effect. Why not "billions" or "trillions"?

Point of order on alternative accounts: 

If an account is flagged legitimately as a scammer and they simply set up a new account and start with a "clean record" as it were, does this not constitute a distinct weakness in the proposal?  Under the criteria set forth in the OP, the suspicion of being an alt is not sufficient to tag the account.  Is there a chance this would enable easy whitewashing of past crimes and create an environment in which is it likely easier to defraud people in future scams?

direct response to:


nutildah is claiming to speak for the vast majority. i am not.


"too many to be counted" was accurate. i can't go back 7 years and count all the people i've seen ruined by trust abuse---that's insane. nor can i estimate the number of people who would rather keep their mouth shut (for fear of DT retaliation) rather than speak out against abuse. (i can only say i was one of those people for many years)


nutildah claims to speak for the vast majority. i merely pointed out the fact that he is attempting to speak for millions of members, which is ridiculous.

source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=mlist;sort=realName;start=0


thanks for staying true to form and deleting all context so you can argue against straw men.

if you insist on engaging in this kind of fallacious bullshit, please direct it at nutildah, who is the one actually making ridiculous claims.

Great question. Let me ask you a question. What is stopping them from just returning again with another alt seconds after you tag them?

I think suspicion is the key word in your post.

There are not many scammers that could possibly fit your description. Most of the serial scammers are tagged red and blend in with others in their business for other reasons.

In the past when a serial scammer tried to use a new account, an admin would find and tag it if it goes undetected long enough.

I'm pretty sure I understand the context of nutildah's post quite well. You're the one extrapolating it to mean every Bitcointalk account and that is indeed fallacious bullshit. Please try to avoid that.

Edit: spelling.

what did nutildah mean then, precisely? i am in the vast minority of what, exactly?

at the very least, nutildah claimed to represent the vast majority of the community. i was merely directly responding to that. (but tbh, if i'm part of the group in question, we must be talking about at least many thousands if not millions of other nobodies in the community)

it's cute how you try to contort someone else's mischaracterization and project it on me though. like i said, this kind of fallacious bullshit from you is 100% expected.

It's called reading.

The definition does not state one should do what one advocates.  Techy is hypocritical, like Greta.

The only time he has stopped crying about how mean DT is, is when he was briefly on DT.

Maybe more masturbation will clear his head.  :/

My favorite part of these types of threads, is it is guaranteed to get all of the most abusive clowns and sad children's party magicians to pop out of the woodwork and expose themselves. Just like when they abuse the trust system to serve their own selfish goals (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0), they can't help themselves.

I disagree. We can't expect every newbie to crypto to instantly be able to tell what is a scam and what isn't. Maybe in the early days when the majority of people involved in bitcoin were technically minded, but if bitcoin is going to grow and appeal to a global audience then it has to start attracting less technically literate people. I don't think it's fair to just say "Do your own research/do your due diligence" and then refuse to arm them with the tools to do so, such as warnings in the form of trust ratings. Sure, red tags won't protect everyone, and sure, there are some who will ignore them and be scammed anyway, but I don't agree with the implication that pre-emptively negative rating scammers doesn't achieve anything.

I should clarify here I am talking solely about pre-emptive ratings on obvious scammers, like the examples I gave in my previous post. In terms of the reference you make to ratings being spammed to punish people for opinions or disagreements, I am in agreement that they are entirely inappropriate.

You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system.

Well, with this clown metaphor, I now have three earworms that I just can't shake.


The following links are not suitable for your mental health. Be warned!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30nQTgO7jZc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L6KGuTr9TI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaMX0Cs5Bc4

I personally think this punishment is rather harsh for my minor transgressions. Especially the "Send in the Clowns." That one is particularly noisome. Perhaps another several month hiatus is in order...  :D

so you're just saying "i'm currently on DT1 and other people currently on DT1 haven't net excluded me"?

wow okay, well that's sort of a circular meaningless argument that ignores the whole point of this thread. we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.

that's what we're trying to change. one of the primary purposes of this thread (IMO) is to say that the rest of the forum can have a vote too: you only need 10 earned merits and then you can participate and affect the default trust system by "voting" for objective/fair members and against biased/unfair members.

even people who have been wronged by DT trust abuse can help to remove their abusers from DT. one of the crucial elements is that you must include members as well since a member's trust list must include 10+ users before they can be on DT1.

so people need to do more than just exclude abusers and hope DT1 members do the same---they need to build bigger trust networks (with inclusions) so they can actually affect the DT1 lottery or be voted in themselves.

this is a numbers game. if everyone keeps refusing to customize their trust list, then nothing will change. the same people will keep voting themselves onto DT1 and perpetuating the current system.

Vires In Numeris.

i also appreciate that TECSHARE has provided some reasonable cover for people who want to include/exclude people in the OP. on this forum, some DT members have been known to use their position to publicly/privately pressure other members into changing their trust lists. this culture of intimidation (combined with fear of DT retaliation) stifles honest usage of the trust system.

perhaps OSG could allow us to create somewhat of a "united front", which DT abusers tend to enjoy, (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226757.0) but which the abused never have the privilege of.

Or masturbation with clowns.  What ever he needs to do to advocate one thing and do another.  :/

You forgot to attach "some form of documentation" to your accusation.

As usual, you are working overtime to confuse these legitimate arguments to serve your own goals. He is not making a negative rating over this now is he? Good job pretending as if you don't understand the argument though. Gold star.



The idea that you are protecting these people is an illusion. Also you will notice you didn't actually address my point, and instead opted to argue a totally different point. My point is that people acting so recklessly they don't take simple precautions and do minimal amounts of research, such as reading neutral ratings, will eventually be robbed. No amount of spamming tags is going to prevent this. There is no reason that neutral ratings can't be used for warnings that don't meet the standard of evidence. This insistence that negative ratings are needed is more of a compulsive need to serve the one rating so they feel like they had an impact than serving the user base by giving a warning. You are attempting to treat the symptoms, not the cause.

You, instead of addressing this point, make some lame straw man argument that we can't expect all newbies to be able to tell what is and is not a scam, therefore, you conclude, we must maintain the status quo. Your preferred status quo doesn't give them any tools either, it just makes them dependent on being told who they shouldn't trade with, giving them a false sense of security, and enabling blind trust in false accusations.

As I already explained several times, and a point you seem to be willfully ignoring at this point, is it is not a question if it works some times. It is a question of, is the minuscule benefit it might result in, worth the very obvious abuse and conflict that results from preserving such ambiguous standards? Clearly the answer is no, but I am sure you will think of another straw man to argue.

it's not an accusation. it's literally how the trust system works. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.0) in fact, i'm actually encouraging people to customize their trust lists so they can vote who they want onto DT1 the same way.

unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.

Techy tries to remove me from DT for five years.
but also
Techy says my posts are the best thing on this forum.

I guess when masturbating, when you get that special feeling you tend to lose logic.  :/

And my point is that just because some people will eventually be robbed doesn't mean the entire system is useless. Some people will drive recklessly and eventually kill themselves in a car accident. Doesn't mean we should all stop wearing seat belts.

I would still like you to provide some examples of this:

Uhm... "literally" doesn't mean what you think it means.

"we've already established" - who's "we", where did "we" establish that, and how did "we" do it?

"self-styled scam busters" - who exactly are they?

"have voted each other into DT positions" - impossible to verify without listing out the "self-styled scam busters" and showing the math to prove it that their mutual inclusions made them DT members. I doubt you could do that, particularly given the fact that some parts of said math are not quite public.

"by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists" - even assuming that you can actually prove the "fact" (might be possible with some creative definition of "hardly anybody"), you would have a really hard time proving that if more people customized their trust lists then the result would be different.

I'd call it a hypothesis at best. Not cool to state it as an "established" fact.


Have you read the OP? I recommend, it's a doozy.

This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...

Guns have legitimate uses
Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes

Trust Ratings have legitimate uses
Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes

From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.

Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective.

One of accounts in TECSHARE's trust network (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h/15728.html), HostFat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203), sent this feedback:

https://i.imgur.com/d69gZtx.png

Why is this person adding accounts who are tagging users because they speak and advocating others to exclude users he doesn't like?

I agree, lets work together! TECSHARE I am suggesting you to place 2 accounts to "~ list":

BayAreaCoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53877436#msg53877436)
HostFat

More observable instances are yet to come.

You seem to be rather obsessed with me masturbating. A bit weird, but ok.



If you don't like me advocating for your removal from the default trust list, maybe don't abuse your authority under it. Your years long pattern of abusing it are well documented in the quoted thread. I don't know how you find the time to post here frankly, I figured you would be busy trying to extort OGNasty into apologizing to you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136576.msg53860754#msg53860754), for something you do regularly I might add. I guess felonies are ok here though, as long as your name is Vod.



I don't think the gun control analogy is useful honestly, as there are a lot of other factors here far beyond self defense vs "public safety".

Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately as the trust system stands, it doesn't take into account these avenues of abuse very well. Since people can't be trusted to not abuse this system, and clearly are not willing to hold people accountable when they abuse it, then the system itself is broken and needs to be changed. Requiring a base standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws I think is the most efficient and realistic way to modify the system for the best results.



Now all you are doing is ignoring the point I made, yet again, and opting to repeat your point, as if that some how makes it less of a straw man argument. You aren't making a retort to my point, you are simply repeating your point, again, without addressing mine.

Once again, the people who are most likely to fall for the cons you think you might protect them from, are the same people that will in fact be robbed regardless of how many people you tag. No one said anything about the entire system being useless. This is just yet another straw man argument on your part. I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences.

As far as your car analogy, it is not an honest one. You compare your position to putting on a seat belt vs not because some people drive recklessly. A more appropriate analogy would be people running around and slashing the tires of anyone they think is driving recklessly. Sure, maybe it might keep some reckless drivers off the road temporarily, but they can quickly just get new tires, and now we have to live in a culture where it is ok for people to run around slashing tires as long as they can make up some lofty pretext to justify it. What could go wrong there?

^ I like the way how you ignore me when I post something you don't like


Why is this account in "suggested inclusions" list? Why is this account in TECSHARE's trust network? This is not by "techare's standards"!

Observable instances (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=370611):

https://i.imgur.com/nC8jdLH.png
https://i.imgur.com/Tvb0H5f.png

Where is evidence of theft?

OH!

https://i.imgur.com/V3G5Tfx.png

Let's work together! Adding request for "suggested exclusions" list:

BayAreaCoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53877436#msg53877436)
HostFat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879374#msg53879374)
bill gator (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879563#msg53879563)

Stop bringing it up all the time then.   Get a girlfriend.  :/


Or OGNasty.  :)

I don't know what box I fit into, but my understanding has always been that red trust is for shady behavior/scams, and inclusions/exclusions are to be used to express confidence in another member's judgement as far as their leaving feedback.  That might not be others' understanding, of course.

Yeah, of course.  And the trust system here is a bit....complex, to say the least.  We've got green/black/red trust, we've got flags, and we've got inclusions/exclusions to trust lists.  It's no wonder it's a free-for-all.

https://meem.link/i/a/CojkQ4.jpg
Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Let's see if anyone can guess which is which.

what a fucking straw man. i never said it was a fact. it was an opinion.

"established" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/established) means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact.

why the fuck are you creating these useless tangents, if not to distract? to convey what i mean, this is the post you responded to:


why did you take the third sentence, completely mischaracterize it as an "accusation", twist my words to imply i presented something as "fact" (when i didn't), and then proceed to ignore the entire post?

i already know why---because straw man arguments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) are the only thing you know.

Then let me once again ask for some evidence of the negative consequences you have previously spoken about.

It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust. This is another example of the drooling gibbering excuses for arguments you people present in an attempt to confirm your bias rather than presenting a logical argument. It reminds me a lot about the accusations Nutilduhhh made of "manipulating the trust system" that other users used as a pretext to negative rate me over.

If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it.



Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?

No, I don't think I will. I could, but all it is going to do is give the usual clowns fodder to argue over and distract from the point of this thread. It isn't hard to find examples. Furthermore, the very act of asking me to document what allowed a scam to happen is rather asinine on its face, and simply bait for you to try to get me to attempt to document things that by their very nature are not conclusively documented. All of this is just yet another sad attempt to avoid addressing my point yet again. Maybe if we slash a few more tires we will all end up safer.

You used "established" as a verb but linked to a dictionary definition of an adjective. "we've already established" is a clear statement of fact and lacks any signal words of an opinion. I can throw dictionaries around with the best of them. Your hyperbolic bullshit has been duly noted but I'm not buying it.

Why did you ignore The Pharmacist?

Please, tell everyone your opinion and reasoning.

Kind of reminds me whenever I leave trust, remove trust, include, exclude, etc.  You are always there with your same old boring claim.   :/

the contention is around what constitutes "shady behavior". for example, i posted a link earlier ITT of a case of DT2 negative trust where the only evidence provided was the victim's trust list. that seems like outright trust abuse, but it's become acceptable now.

nobody seems to be able to say what standards even exist for the trust system at all. really, there are none. it's a "might makes right" system where combating trust abuse is incredibly difficult due to the forces of inertia.

my theory: nobody on DT wants to "rock the boat" and step out of line because they know how commonplace retaliatory tags and retaliatory trust exclusions are, and they don't want to lose their status/reputation. it's much easier to brush the issue under the rug and act like trust abuse doesn't exist. nobody wants to directly antagonize trust abusers either, for obvious reasons. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225901.msg53845290#msg53845290)

it's a shitty situation but one we find ourselves in nonetheless. this is why i encourage anyone and everyone to begin using customized trust lists, so we can perhaps establish a new consensus that might better represent public opinion.


indeed, i used "established" as a verb and then you mischaracterized it to mean an "established fact".

still a mischaracterization: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish

and who the fuck cares about this? you've yet to address why you are continuing to distract from the discussion with this completely unimportant tangent.


+1

It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued. To speculate on the point where such a lack of accurate or useful ratings becomes critical is going to be inaccurate. I have no knowledge of any member saying I ignored a tag because I had read multiple other frivolous flags but that does not mean it has not happened. People generally don't like to admit they ignored warnings then got scammed.

However one could reason that a member has been harmed or deceived into loss finsncially, when they avoid a trade or miss out on a great deal due to a frivolous inaccurate tag and pay more to get it elsewhere or where a member is forced out business by a frivolous tag given for personal retribution. Or scammed out of their sig.

There are also these insoluble problems we must never forget

* members are treated equally and with consistency

* free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion

* high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals

* to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust

* prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system

* prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots


* preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about
lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone


I would say for sure that the irrefutable threat to free speech is magnitudes more worrying than the loss of pre-emptive warnings because they will always carry an irrefutable risk of punishing the innocent or those lacking knowledge without being trying to internationally trying to scam.  

However the type 1 flag will still allow you to give credible valuable and accurate warnings of setting up a scam out attempting to scam or requesting luring people into directly vulnerable postions in a strictly financial sense.

People trying to make this all about tecshare or any personal disputes are clearly not interested in find what is best for the forum. If they were they would be debating this in that context not speculating on tecshares motivation and trying to use it to criticize him.

The point regarding the suggested list was answered and their tags will be abolished with everyone else's and the system will ensure their future warnings are as responsible and accurate as any other members.

 I say again, the includes list is possibly a stumbling block. Better to build a large group of members that support reducing greatly the subjectivity, by moving to the flagging system and sharpening the lever 1 flag to those that specifically pose a direct financial threat in terms of attempting to scam or setting up a scam.

There is no credible argument to retain tagging. It will be found net negative compared to the suggested transparent objective system in every scenario.

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

This topic is so damn confusing. For example:

https://i.imgur.com/iXX4Ikg.png

All these users tagged account hashman (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30033), here is reference link for tags: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190670#post_hashman (account is in in tecshare's trust network (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-15_Sat_06.10h/15728.html) btw)

I don't see them in topic so it is either:

1) they have good evidence of theft, contract violation and/or violation of applicable laws and tecshare included potentially hacked account to his trust network (according to tecshare's standards)
2) they are abusing trust and they should be in list number 2 (according to tecshare's standards)

Which one is it?  ???

This should be a separate discussion.

Moving to objective accurate flagging system.

Optional trust list exclusions / inclusions.

The latter far less crucial under greatly reduced subjectivity and far more complex to gain absolute consensus.

Currently if you have accurate personal tagging history but are enabling and supporting the inclusion of members that have masses of frivolous tags or tags not directly related to scamming, attempted scamming or setting up a scam then that could be the reasoning behind their optional exclusions.

Since this is optional and of a way lower importance to moving to a transparent and objective system then it seems strange to try to discredit the move on largely irrelevant bickering and speculation.

Regardless of the suitability or perceived suitability of the optional lists. I would like to hear each member address the move to a transparent and objective flagging system. Some members seem to be avoiding tackling or debating the core and most important point.  Preferring to perhaps discredit the as yet entirely robust and net positive move to the flags entirely.

If you are unable to present a supporting argument that stands up to scrutiny for retaining the subjective tagging system, then you should support the move to flagging entirely. If you will not then at the very least you should not attempt to prevent it.

Marlboroza do you wish to present an argument to retain the subjective tagging system? or is your objection here to the optional lists and who is on them? these are not the same thing.

So now you are so desperate to find ways to attack me, you need to resort to guilt via tertiary association now? None of those people are in my inclusions. You don't give a fuck about this community, you only care to preserve the ability to play your chimp like shit slinging games. You are intentionally ignoring not only the actual wording of the op, but its intent in order to maintain the status quo you and your friends benefit from. Your intellectual dishonesty and obsession with impugning my character is quite transparent.

Are you trying to say that everything what is posted in topic should be in different topic? I am following topic and giving suggestions to TECSHARE! He said "feel free to suggest...", he didn't say "you are not allowed to look in my trust network..." and, followed by his standards, I am suggesting him to not cherrypick accounts if he has so strong opinion about whole thing. My posts are pretty much on topic, question to something which is in topic is still on topic reply! Look, he said:

I am giving my best to work together with TECSHARE and trying to find reasonable solution for these 4 observable instances  :)

Why are you spamming? Which one is it? It is pretty much 1 or 2! Which one?

Why you don't want to work on this?

---

As I now have your attention, can you please:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879760#msg53879760

Thank you!

Good Luck!

He can't win arguments so he makes sure he can't lose them either by not finishing them.  :/

How many dozens have times have I won an argument only to have him deflect like he is now, that sick fuck. 

It is like talking to a brick wall.

In one thread he holds users directly accountable:
Then he starts another thread and doesn't hold the same users accountable:
Are they suggested inclusions or accountable(not suggested inclusions) then  ???

He invites me to this thread:

Then he doesn't want me to post here:

He doesn't even know what is his own topic about:

Fucking prick, he said to suggest inclusions/exclusions (based on his standards):
Then he attacks me for my suggestions (which are based on his standards).

https://i.imgur.com/v5u6k6p.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqIY3NfoYvw)

Yes, it is on topic, although not comprehensively. However, since those are only suggested or optional lists, then lack of complete consensus on those lists does not destroy, or really have much impact if any on the merit of moving to the objective flagging system.

 So to focus entirely on a possible conflict of subjective options with regard to the 100 % optimal candidates for those lists, rather than voicing support for the core and most important point, can produce a negative vibe on what should be a positive and cohesive union.

You would support surely this move ? after accepting it would both solve that long list of damaging insoluble problems, and produce far more credible and accurate warnings for members. It is a clear win win situation.

Guaranteeing a persons lists were 100% optimal to ensuring the protection, safety and fair treatment of the entire forum regardless of personality type, and other variables that could be a factor, is impossible. It becomes far less important, when the System design,  removes subjectivity, and that system can only be used in a responsible, accurate, and useful manner. You design systems that can not be abused that produce consistency and value.

Consensus on the move to the transparent objective flagging system should be easy to achieve since there is an overwhelmingly strong and robust argument to support that.

Consensus on the optional lists is likely impossible for many reasons. It is not required or essential.

Therefore to focus on the latter is net negative and counterproductive in the full context of what could be achieved here.

 I would suggest TS placing a passage of text saying these are my optional and entirely personal lists for your consideration. Do your own research to determine if you consider them useful guides.  There may be many different factors that my extensive research has unearthed for each member on the list which can be discussed in detail on another thread  and these are dynamic and constantly changing. These lists do not require your complete agreement you should include those you determine are best suited. The move to a transparent objective flagging system will ensure all warnings are left in a responsible, independently verifiable, consistent manner that are accurate and useful regardless. of the member raising the warning and those supporting the warning.

That is just my suggestion, TS is free to do as he wishes of course. I am supporting this movement regardless,  due to firmly agreeing with a move to transparent objective standards.

Well, since the only thing thing bozo could do was post his graduation after party pic, looks like you actually won (even though he will deny it).

Congrats - you proved Techy is a hypocrite.  :)

Oh, now that Vod is here, we have everybody I think TS has named as being part of the Clown Car. However, the definition is still open to including every DT member that potentially pisses off TS at some point.


This is a very rational assessment. However, the different of opinion many of us have is when it comes to defining what "misuse" of trust means. Some times its quite clear cut; other times its not. I don't care for the whole randomness factor (the "Theymos Snap" as I call it) that determines who is an entrant into DT1 each month, but other than that, I think the system of "checks and balances" works decently well and is not likely to get much better than it currently is.

Now of course TS and perhaps others are going to say that I like it as is because it "favors" me, but I'd like to think it only does so because my use of the system remains within the general bounds of what is considered to be acceptable.

The whole point of the system remaining open and flexible in its current state is to allow the DT community (which is frequently evolving) as a whole to decide what acceptable use of the trust system is. Of course, not everybody is going to agree on everything, and there will always exist minority and majority opinions, as should be the case.

I tend to go by what is listed here, which is an outline developed around previously-held discussions, and then modified after ongoing discussions in that thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

I am absolutely against setting rigid standards because then we are reliant on a single entity to set and enforce said standards, which is something theymos has been trying to get away from for quite some time.

That is not actually true, and the statement is not supported by any argument that would stand up to scrutiny.

The would still be no reliance upon a single entity. It is quite within the capabilities of most members here to correctly differentiate between behaviors that are a direct financial danger either scamming, attempting to scam or setting up a scam and those others like drinking lemonade, and having different opinions to other people, calling people a twat, etc.

I think claiming we will need theymos to tell us every time a lemonade drinker, a person with unpopular opionions, or any other behavior that is totally unrelated to trading, money, direct financial matters of any kind ia not a direct financial danger is incorrect.  

Also what theymos is aiming for or attempting, should not be conflated with that which is proven best or optimal for the forum. So the theymos said, theymos wants, theymos hinted are not immediately to be accepted as the final and best answers or solutions. I'm sure he would agree. One person can not be expected to come up with the optimal solution to all problems. We are decentralizing the problem solving process here or perhaps distributing the process.

Also a single entity Making the decision alone that future decisions with in his system He designed alone are optimally formed in a decentralized manner Is full of problems for those trying to leverage that as some totally decentralized and credible final argument of absolute guarantee of must-be-right-right.

Is there an application process for this Guild? I want to apply.

No. You've made a claim that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers causes significant negative effects, such as allowing major scammers to be lost in "signal noise". I've asked repeatedly for evidence of that claim, which you are refusing to provide. You can't just make unsubstantiated claims with no proof and then place the onus on other people to debunk them. Isn't that the entire point of your opening post in this thread?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I have a lower score on my own trust list than I do on default trust.

I don't disagree with that, and let me restate again that "frivolous tags given for personal retribution" as you put it have no place in the trust system. What I do disagree with is TECSHARE's suggestion and that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers results in more negatives than positives.

which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions? i think that's fairly self-evident and not worth arguing over, but we can agree to disagree. it's an opinion, and i don't mind being associated with it.

i don't think that implies that i'm "reckless with facts" but it's cute how you're now piling on ad hominems so you can continue distracting from the actual topic. ::)

as a reminder, the issue is whether claims related to negative trust feedback are substantiated. the issue is not whether "every opinion figmentofmyass expresses" is substantiated.

should i pick apart every sentence you utter, asking you to "substantiate" everything you say? this is the height of false equivalence! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence) i'm asking for people to substantiate their claims regarding negative trust, not meet ridiculous standards (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879293#msg53879293) for every opinion they express when writing a post on bitcointalk. ::)

if you had anything useful to say, you would address the topic---whether there should be objective standards regarding the trust system, whether DT negative trust should require any standards whatsoever, etc---rather than distracting with ridiculous off-topic tangents, fallacies, and ad hominem attacks.


+1.

Correct :D I have Merit for that O0
Theymos is really my kryptonite.

I made a topic for that a long time ago: Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143841.0).

With obvious scammers or those undeniably placing people at great direct financial risk then maybe yes. Perhaps some examples and details could bring you both closer together. For example is an objective and solid warning this member is requesting information that renders members financially vulnerable and open to scamming leaving much room for subjectivity. So long as there is a credible and direct financial threat that can be independently verfied, then there is nothing wrong with a statement or warning saying that. That is reducing the subjectivity and frivolous ratings to strike a nice balance between mitigating those insoluble problems and increasing the reliability, accuracy and credibility of pre-emptive warnings.

His point I suspect is that those insoluble problems I mentioned that are very damaging to the forum are more net negative for the forum as a whole than the positives of pre emotive flagging. I expect that he is factoring in that some innocent people will be flagged at some point.
However, I think if people are even innocently placing members at great financial risk by requiring priv keys or as you say are conducting  real, credible , directly financially dangerous behaviors then it would be sensible to provide a warning if the system can permit that without creating those insoluble problems.  I mean if I was latter was shown to be a genuine mistake or lack of knowledge people can withdraw the support for the flag.

Those insoluble problems are very serious though, and if you think about each one carefully they do enable scamming at perhaps a more serious and less obvious level. Also scamming from higher levels does have more leverage.

The insoluble problems, all the infighting can be largely mitigated and I think pre-emptive warnings  can certainly remain in a less dangerous, more reliable? and more accurate way.

Perhaps just some sensible consideration and willingness to consider each other's arguments would bring an optimal solution for everyone.

I personally will always view free speech as the most valuable thing that requires protection here. I do think everyone should be reasonably responsible for their own financial security online. However, both can be reasonably accommodated within a sensible design. It would be optimal until a better design that stood up to scrutiny was proposed.

What TECSHARE is proposing in the OP is quite different from his own trust list. And he's not in your thread for obvious reasons so no viable comparison can be made.


Your post where you tried to backpedal from your "millions of board members" claim (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879093#msg53879093) was predicated on that but then you declared that discussing it is a tangent. Ok, fine. I've been advocating custom trust lists for years as have many other users. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory for that.

You might want to review your own trust list to make sure it meets your standards. For example you're including someone who posts ratings like these:


That's not very "standard", is it?

See the full list: http://loyce.club/trust/selfscratchers/
(Note: this is older data)

Step 1: Remove your negative trust comment for Tecshare.
Step 2: Include rather than exclude Tecshare from your trust list.
Step 3: Read the OP and adjust your trust list to include everyone part of the guild and exclude all clown car members.
Step 4: Leave positive trust comment for Tecshare

It's that easy. However, is it possible to exclude yourself from your own trust list? That might be tricky.

No, I just tried it. ~suchmoon disappeared after "Update" and nothing changed. No guild membership for me or Lauda I guess.

Well, fortunately for those poor souls on the blackball list, they can always create an alt account or just use one that they have handy. After all, we need more alt accounts bitching about the trust system. We can never have enough of those. ;)

I was genuinely curious about this...

What is the logical outcome of excluding yourself in the trust system?

Well, it would mean that your own judgment is not to be trusted, which means that you don't recognize your own exclusion, which is probably why it disappeared...?

How can an objective Guild have an non-objective application process that prevents members from even applying? Seems discriminatory, and therefore not objective. QED.

Just like with any other user - it should move my sent trust ratings and flag supports into the "untrusted" category. It might get a bit murky with network level 1 and 2 though. If I'm excluding myself then I guess ratings of my inclusions should also be not visible to me if depth > 0.


It didn't work out for Quicksy. TECSHARE figured out his alt and removed it, allegedly.

Just out of curiosity, is this the sort of thing that would show up on BPIP? Seems like it would.

https://i.imgur.com/PEjxs36.png

No, because currently TECSHARE is not an active DT1 member so his inclusions/exclusions of non-DT1-members don't show up in real time. BPIP gets the near-real-time data from here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt;full

But it would show up in the weekly update tomorrow on LoyceV's site.

One more boring question: why does it show up for his activity with The Pharmacist tho?

Well, it appears that LoyceV has been drafted as a member of this guild. So I am certain that there must be other ways to become a member of this guild. From what I read in the OP, you can definitely try playing lip service to the tenets and just call yourself a member.

At that time the DT1/DT2 "badges" used to show current status (not the status as of the time of the event). In other words, The Pharmacist was probably in DT1 at the time then this happened, so the event got captured, he later dropped out of DT1 (due to random selection I guess?) and his "badge" got updated to DT2.

Since the beginning of February we changed the logic a little bit so the "badges" now show the status as of the time of the event (i.e. you can see how the particular inclusion/exclusion affects the target user). It also "froze" old data so The Pharmacist's "badge" on that old record remains DT2 even though he's now DT1.

I have a plan to fix the historic data so that it makes more sense but that's a low priority, because that log is useful mostly in the current week before LoyceV's lists get updated.

It clearly does favor you. You were openly selling your account (http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0). For all we know you aren't actually Nutilduhh, and you have no way to prove the trade never happened. This also demonstrates you are willing to let this community be scammed for a few Satoshis. If it were me or anyone else the clown car has on their shit list, this would be the worst atrocity ever committed. You have tagged people for exactly the same. People have been excluded from the DT for doing nothing more than what you did here. Since you make a habit of being on your knees and washing the balls of the DT members, you get a pass. This system absolutely does favor you.



You have difficulty being intellectually honest. Again, rather than addressing my point that the net detriment is larger than the net gain, you attempt to shift the topic to your demands for proof of "signal noise". You aren't interested in a discussion, you are only interested in attempting to dictate the discussion and its topics without actually addressing anything I am presenting, instead choosing to only discuss the parts that you feel serve your argument in favor of drawing attention away from legitimate points I have made which you desperately want to distract from. In order for the status quo system to work, open discussion is required. Your actions prove why that system is a failure.





As for the rest of you digging through shits I took years ago to find peanuts, I find it hilarious you need to go years back in my activities to find something even remotely objectionable, meanwhile your left trust ratings are page after page after page of negative trust ratings spammed out with little to no research or due diligence. Many of the people on high levels of the DT have never even conducted any trade here, and have raised their own reputation doing nothing more than impugning the character of others.

Who is even checking that those accusations are accurate? If anyone complains they are summarily dismissed as a scammer bitching because they got their come comeuppance. Of course, that is not important, what is important is you found a peanut and a cashew in my turd from 5 years ago. Thank you, all of you for working your hardest to prove that anyone who is critical of the current system has a whole team of people digging through their activities looking for excuses to punish them so they can be dismissed under your punitive evidence free system of just us.

So the good news seems to be that in ~5 years the clowns will be able to apply to the guild regardless of what they did in the past.

Could be less, maybe like 3 days actually, seeing how a member of the guild (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18321;page=sent;offset=0) left non-standard feedback as recently as February 17, 2020.

Oh, OK, that makes sense, thanks.


https://colombiareports.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sex.jpg


Okay, by that logic prove you never sold your account. Most account sales take place off forum so there's no record of it here. I heard it was sold. Prove it wasn't.


I tagged one full-time account seller, once. That was their business on the forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4619577.0). They did nothing other than that.*


There's a big difference between me and Bill Gator in that this isn't a bought account. You have no proof that it was sold (objective standards, remember?), not that I agree that Bill Gator should have been tagged to shreds.


If I left a bunch of bullshit ratings, used my inclusions and exclusions to pad my trust or DT score, or included scammers in my trust list - thereby failing to demonstrate that I had an understanding of the DT system over a period of years - then I would absolutely be punished for it. You have no proof otherwise except for what you have imagined via your own projections.


*apparently they were also a scammer, so my warning not to trust that user was absolutely prescient in that regard:

I never advertised my account for sale. You did. I am very sorry you made such a stupid mistake exposing your willingness to allow this forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars, and then furthermore run around punishing people for exactly what you yourself were guilty of, but that is not my responsibility.

You posted your account for sale, proving factually in your own words your intent to allow the forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars. You then tried to cover it up by editing the post, also demonstrating you know you did something you shouldn't have. You have no way to prove your account wasn't sold, and this is significant evidence to suggest it was regardless of your protestations and refractory counter demands.

This would have been more than enough evidence to destroy anyone on the DT shitlist, but you get a pass because you are a full time ball washer of everyone who would be excluding you. You are a walking talking living example of trust system nepotism and selective enforcement allowing abuse.



Thanks for more proof of your intellectual dishonesty. No argument for your obsessive muck raking in a desperate search to find any morsel to impugn my character over, being forced to go back years to find examples, you are now resorting to defining people I didn't even put in the suggested inclusions list as "guild members". I guess that is the kind of thing you think qualifies for logic. You define what the guild is, then condemn me for what you defined it as. That doesn't sound anything at all like a straw man argument now does it?

The people you have in your inclusions I don't even have to go back months, I only need look back days and weeks. Shit some of your inclusions probably have abused the trust system within hours. Lets not focus on that though, you have proof I once ate a Payday bar back in 2014.

Sorry, my fault, let's just focus on your words, not on what you do.

Please share your justification for including users who don't meet your own standards.

Also note that I never claimed to be compliant with your standards.

Most account sales are off-forum, perhaps it was elsewhere.


Doubling down on the whole false equivalence thing, that was to be expected.


That's not what that proves, and it certainly doesn't prove my account was sold. It just occurred to me that this is all very off-topic, but whatever...


How can I cover it up when there is an archived version of that thread referenced in my feedback? I edited the post to make fun of revenge-seeking detectives like you.


You also have no way to prove your account wasn't sold. Prove that it wasn't. I dare you.


Well it certainly is evidence that it was up for sale at one point, there's no getting around that fact. Oh wait I'm supposed to be trying to cover it up. Forgot about that. Whoops.


You should really work in a movie theater as projecting seems to be quite a well-developed skill of yours.

Hilarious?  Personally, I find it disturbing when you do that to me, but whatever...

Um, didn't you ask for this?... to prove you were not a hypocrite?


To answer the question, yes..

Based on the standards in your guild, you should already be excluded from your own trust list!!

This seems impressively hypocritical.

Did you just point something from 2016. while complaining that someone is pointing something you did in 2016.?

Speaking of 2016...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=812074

https://i.imgur.com/HFFJtbg.png

Here is reference link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407150.msg14333933#msg14333933

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=148389
https://i.imgur.com/DsbFjWz.png
Reference link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407150.msg14333933#msg14333933

Do you and BAC have solid proof that comicguy79 is alt account of user justbtcme? What if I tag OGNasty and I say that he didn't like that no one wanted to bid higher than 0.59btc so he outbid that only one bid? How that circumstantial evidence sound?

This is not by your standards! Why are you tagging users based on circumstantial evidence???

I (again) suggest to update OP with suggested exclusion:
~TECSHARE
~Bayareacoins

It would seem that failure to present any kind of compelling argument to retain the subject tagging system that generates multiple insoluble problems that seriously damaged this forum. Those members seeking to retain this abusive, dangerous and destructive advantage over others have shifted the debate to a highly personal character assassination of tecshare.

They have made no effort to debate the advantages of moving to a system that would simultaneously solve many of those damaging insoluble problems,
whilst providing a more accurate, credible and valuable warning that would focus on scammers, those attempting or setting up a scam.

Clearly understanding that no conceivable argument to retain this subjective and destructive mess exists, their only option is to derail this important and productive thread into an opportunity to collude together to attack the messenger rather than the message.

This tactic is all too common here on bitcointalk.

Even if a member had previously conducted themselves in a manner that could reasonably be construed as failing to meet clear objective standards. That does not preclude them from producing a robust argument for adopting objective standards now.


The lists are of secondary or minor importance. Being on either one of Those lists is irrelevant to your membership to the guild. Your willingness to use the flagging system in a responsible manner based on The objective independently verifiable standards discussed would demonstrate whether you are a member of the guild or not. Actions not words and lists.

So you agree with TECSHARE's guild but you don't agree with TECSHARE's guild ??? Seems you missed this again:

I agree with the core points and a support his efforts to push for transparent objective standards which Will remove the damaging list of insoluble problems

In general tecshare is an honest and reputable member, who has demonstrated he Will risk his own neck to speak up and defend others and continue pushing for objective transparent standards. It is a shame to see the ruthless attempt to bully him into submission.

I support the guild. I support transparent objective standards. The lists are of secondary importance.

It seems you don't, lists are very important because they are in conflict with this guild.

That user failed to honor a bid he made. An auction is a contract, which that user violated. Thank you all for the wonderful demonstration of what happens any time anyone suggests changes to the broken system here.

Because I deny the very implication that the net detriment is larger than the net gain, because of the points I have made above. As you have been arguing for this whole time, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the claims, to prove that your claims are factual and not just your opinions. If red tagging scammers is indeed causing such overwhelming amounts of harm to the forum, then it should be trivial for you to "document it in an objective and observable way". I wonder why you refuse.

The lists are not an insurmountable problem for me, I can use those lists but don't consider them important once tagging is abolished and we are moved on to the objective flagging system. I'm onboard with the guild.

Do you marlboroza support moving entirely over to a flagging system where warnings are created according to an objective standard, which increases the credibility, accuracy and value of warnings in relation too scammers, those attempting to scam or are setting up a scam? or where there is objective independently verifiable evidence of members being placed in direct financial danger ?
Whilst of course removing the list of damaging insoluble problems that the subjective tagging system generates.

Or have you a credible and robust argument that demonstrates retaining the subjective tagging system is net positive for this forum?

I wonder if malboroza can provide a sensible answer? I'm sure if you want to support the core principles of providing warnings based on objective standards you would be given an opportunity to redeem any previous trust abuse that you "have" engaged in.

o_e_l_e_o I don't think tecshare realized that you are open to adopting an objective standard so long as it affords the opportunity to produce an objective warning that members are being placed or are being requested to place themselves in direct financial danger.

These insoluble problems or lack thereof

* members are treated equally and with consistency

* free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion

* high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals

* to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust

* prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system

* prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots


* preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about
lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone


are undeniable. I don't expect that anyone could present an argument to refute any single one of them is not a insoluble problem with an entirely subjective tagging system such as it is. Proving that red tagging for voicing 0

So far I have noticed that you have been prepared to debate the positives and negatives and have been reasonable. This is how each member should be willing to engage.

I would agree that if it there is strong or even undeniable evidence ( such as priv keys being requested ) then a warning saying this member has engaged in behaviors that placing others in direct financial danger an could be an attempted scam attempt is sensible. If that kind of warning can be given without generating all of the insoluble problems a totally subjective tagging system does then why not provide such a warning.

No point creating a huge chasm between two goals that are closely aligned at the core.

I would include o_e_l_e_o based on his stated view on how the trust system should be used. I mean he may not wish to join this guild anyway, but based on what he is saying then I would see him as a suitable include

Long term for every member actions will be loaded than words.

I would recommend that every member that has been tagged for behaviors that are nothing to do with scamming, attempting to scam nor strongly appear to be setting up a scam should be directed to this guild.  

Yeah, we noticed. Good for you, you can make a denial. Now try arguing the logic of the other points I made. As usual you aren't willing to have an intellectually honest debate. You zero in on the two words you can hyperfocus on to disregard the entirety of the rest of the argument in order to totally avoid addressing the rest of the content. I am going to just start quoting myself if this is how you insist on engaging with me. You insist that if I can't some how document causality of what happens in the minds of other people, then I must be wrong. You are totally disingenuous. Don't you have some more tires to slash?

You completely ignored his request for evidence that proactive scammer tagging without absolute proof is a net negative.

Here's one example of a proactive tagging of a scam exchange that was not "objectively" a scam until today:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=902367

We drove them off the forum months ago -- they left not because we are meanies, but because they are scammers.

Feel free to find a counter-example of a negative feedback I left on an account that was undeserved. Don't just say, "but others do" -- I can't control what they do, and that's besides the point. The argument you are making is that tagging accounts with objective proof that they are scammers is inherently bad, and we are arguing otherwise.

I know they did, it is obvious what that user did, but you claim something completely different here.

You are talking about some objective standards in this topic.

Your feedback is on account comicguy79 and BAC's feedback is on account justbtcme. It clearly says "ALT ACCOUNT OF JUSTBTCME" and "JUSTBTCME USED SHILL ACCOUNT TO OUTBID HIMSELF"

Both reference are linking this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407150.msg14333933#msg14333933.

Can you please post proof that account justbtcme used account comicguy79 to do what you two claim they did?

If you can't link proof of connection then you both abused trust(according to you):


Circumstantial evidence:

1) Ognasty did it because he wasn't satisfied with current bid
2) You or BAC did it because you both have been engaged in fight with this user
3) Justbtcme did it because he didn't want to buy item
4) Anyone else did it

You want to talk about objective standards so talk.

Cmon, tecshare, why didn't you tag account justbtcme and painted their wall with the same words? Look, this is what you claim:


I just can't find proof looking at the reference link, please post proof to back up your own words from this topic. As the matter of fact, please post solid proof of scamming, not "he said she said then I said, I can't because I didn't...". I just can't make my mind reading those threads linked as reference, seems there are, I don't know, 5-6 feedback for the same thing.

When you do this, we shall talk about these observable instances:


I have time to go trough every questionable feedback (according to this topic and you), so we shall discuss it. When we reach end of discussion about "suggested inclusions" we shall make comparison between trust feedback of "suggested inclusions" and "suggested exclusions".

Please, don't just talk, lets walk. For start post proofs of connection between justbtcme and comicguy79.

I hope you all are having fun picking peanuts out of my turds. Just a reminder, a handful of peanuts does not equal a pattern. What is a pattern is obvious with one look at any of the left ratings from any of the clown car riders here so vociferously protesting any changes.

marlboroza, I was going to send you 10 merits if Techy didn't deflect from your questions.  I guess he's busy going through eight years of my poop looking for something to use against me.  Oh yeah, clown music.

Sorry, but I didn't think I'd have to pay out...   8)

Is it wrong for them to point out the double-standard, though?  You're the one professing tags have to be objective.  If you really want to do this thing, maybe consider leading by example and update or remove any old tags you've left that don't conform to the standards you'd now prefer everyone else follow?  Just a thought.

Techshare does not deflect! He criticize!  :P

---

Errr...small reminder:


Why you don't want to work together with me now? Here you go:

Please do.

Are these accounts by standards of this guild?

Is it wrong for a mass murderer to lecture people about not being vegan? The point is they are picking nits in order to distract form their long and regular pattern of abusive behavior. They want to accuse me of everything they do at a much more massive scale. This is all just a pathetic game of control where they want to dictate every detail to me in order to distract from their own behavior.

The truth is I could be the perfect human being and there would be no path to redemption with these people, they would still invent things to accuse me of. I have been here for 8 years and have left no more than a handful of negative ratings. I have shown incredible and exceptional restraint in my use of the trust system. These people leave more negative ratings in an hour some times than I have done during those entire 8 years, but yeah, you are right, I am the hypocrite, not them.

Okay, so you're feeling a little persecuted here, but, objectively, whatever you think their motives might be in pointing it out, those older tags could be amended.  Then, you leave them with nothing legitimate to pick at.  People will be able to tell if they are inventing new and untrue things to accuse you of.  When in doubt, try to be beyond reproach, even if human nature sometimes makes that impossible.  Then you can hold your head up high, knowing you're in the right.

How is on topic reply distraction from topic ???
Please provide objective number of how many accounts is allowed to tag. Sure, why not, lets work together. I am all for this objective standardz guild.

---

Small reminder about proofs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53890464#msg53890464) and other thingies...

Edit:

https://i.imgur.com/Jlw15zK.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31553

Who did they scam ??? ??? ???

This is just like show me the man I will show you the crime attitude. Come on it's reflecting dude. Above people atleast doesn't abuse it at the level many of the people's on the exclusion list in the OP do so at an huge amount at daily basis hence they still suit to be the member of the OSG !

And one more thing, I am sure they would even respect someone's apology if the user is willing to change so that's more humanitarian too.

---

BTW, I would like to suggest removing @tmtp from the exclusion list if it could be considered. I think he is a very knowledgeable person overall and some of his judgements have saved thousands of dollars from many users around which is traceable through his post history. I rather agree with rest of the exclusion list.

I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837), and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed.

Thanks for this, people above abuse trust. So no guild?

So rise above it.  The alternative, if you don't amend the prior tags, is that people might assume you still feel those tags were justified despite not being objective.  Meaning that sometimes subjective tags are appropriate.  This would sadly undermine the argument you are trying to present.

From the way you describe "them", I suspect overhauling the tagging system will not change their attitude or behaviour towards you.  Is that what you're hoping to achieve?  They'd stop persecuting you if they had to tag objectively?  I think you're going to be left disappointed on that front however the tags might be used going forwards.  Same goes for CH/TOAA/etc.

We just think that you're being hypocritical. Like I've said to you in the past and DooMAD is saying now, you've got to lead by example if you want others to follow. We're not the ones trying to re-invent the wheel here, you are. So if you want it re-invented, show us you are capable of making a new shape. Otherwise it just sounds like you are complaining about the same 'ol same 'ol: you think the wheel sucks, we get it.

You have to manifest change in yourself instead of expecting the world to change around you.

I am definitely unsatisfied with the current amount of frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags which are handed out, but I completely disagree that we should be waiting for scams to be successful before tagging them, and I disagree with the unproven implication that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers is counter-productive. The problem is that TECSHARE is entirely unwilling to even consider a compromise. It's either his way or you are wrong.

Completely agree. This thread was initially created in response to the "gang" thread, which was initially created because of comments regarding people growing thicker skin. No one should be trying to police what other people say. You disagree? Fine. You are offended? Also fine. Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.

It depends where you draw the line of "high level scammers". There are some scammers who I agree should never have their red trust removed, but there are more than a handful of DT "feuds" consisting of red tags which are either entirely frivolous or blown way out of proportion. Even scammer flags expire after 3 years or 10 years for type 2 and 3 respectively.


Your other bullet points I more-or-less agree with. All the infighting and ever more frequent retaliatory ratings achieve nothing useful and simply cheapen the entire system. Similarly, people shouldn't be afraid of red trust when it comes to raising points of contention.

As have you. I don't know if you are or are not an alt of CH/TOAA as many users suspect, but this more reasoned approach is much appreciated.

The supposition that there is a huge net negative to the forum does not logically follow from the proposition of pre-emptively tagging scammers, regardless of how many times you repeat it. I know you want it to be true, because such a thing would support your already reached conclusions, but if you can't provide some evidence to support your opinions, then there really is little point in arguing. You have already made up your mind, and there is nothing I can say which will make you even consider alternative points of view.

The changes that you're proposing (include some users, exclude some others) are nothing special and probably don't have much of an effect on anyone "protesting" here. The pattern that's emerging seems to show you presenting wild claims, refusing to substantiate them, accusing others of doing things that you do yourself, and denying that you should be held to your own standards.

You would probably have more success if you honestly said "I don't like these people, please exclude them". This cockamamie "guild" just exposes your hypocrisy.

Techy, I'm sensing the hypocrisy here.

Don't you record and comment on every single trust I leave or take away?  Haven't you recently been inventing new accusations against me and speaking for other people?

You need to understand no one is going to follow your orders to change until you change first.

As I said they would consider an respectful apology but you don't, and it makes them more humanly than you. So yes guild.

Apology for what? Are you advocating for a "standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way" or a "system of selective enforcement that [...] functions as a gate keeping mechanism under which none shall pass until the knee is bent and tribute is paid"?

Sounds like bending the knee and paying tribute is fine for some guild members, or maybe you're not a member, it's quite confusing.

So objective standards guild for trust abusers (according to rules of guild)?

This is unhelpful, largely untrue and quite a nasty summary of tecshares actions. This is misleading at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

His core point is moving to objective transparent standards that he will be held to of course,  the lists are suggestions only. You are deliberately trying to discredit his core points by blowing way out of proportion some of the list selections. The list should be a suggestion or starting point for people to investigate for themselves. I don't think it is sensible to expect any member to keep appraised to every tag each member on these lists is going to  make / has made and investigate each case deeply.

He would have a serious problem finding accounts that have an impeccable tagging history . He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging. The tag you originally raised as problematic was way more valuable and accurate than several of those left by members that you include or have included recently. You recognize this clearly since you tags are very robust.

The strange thing about you is that you of all members seem to be already adopting pretty stringent objective standards that are aligned with those Tecshare is proposing.

This demonstrates that you know how to use the trust system optimally but are afraid to counter those frivolous ratings that you know should be countered l, and that you have a strange personality that drives you to put appearing smart, funny and semi- cruel above what is best for the forum. Give it up.

Going by your use of the trust system from my initial investigations you should be included not excluded. The strange thing is your bark is worse than your bite. It's almost like you want to talk like a bad boy but operate as a school prefect.

You are not the smartest nor funniest member here, so stop trying to be, and you would be clearly be net positive.
Your sarky and bitter style is okay in very small doses.

o_e_l_e_o is accurate with his assessment. I disagree that pre-emptive warnings could ever be net positive in light of the insoluble problems that they produce. However, if sensible and reasonable consideration is given to both sides, then a workable solution that accommodates and addresses both sets of valid concerns can result in a system that  benefits the whole forum going forward.
From what he has said, then I see no reason to exclude him either and would include him on my list.

We need to look forward. Even those that have left frivolous tags can be included if they are willing to operate according to objective transparent standards going forward. Out immediate goals should not be getting out own tags removed ( if we have them) it should be the optimal solution going forward for the entire forum.

Tecshare is clearly being bullied in terms of coordinated character attacks by multiple members. It is not nice to watch at all. I see a member with years of impeccable trade history being treated with no respect and addressed as if he is an enemy of bitcoin and this forum. I am still reading through his post history and freely admit the guy seems pretty inteligent and possesses a robust history of producing strong argument and valuable insight.

I feel that any member subjected to a long period of sustained and at times viscous attacks will  inevitably become very defensive. I would not criticize them for that.

I guess it all depends on the atmosphere you want here.
You would reason that a group of people that want bitcoin to succeed and are not trying to scam each other or anyone else could be mature enough to get along or just avoid those that irritate them.

My prime concern is The freedom of speech aspect. Other's view the prevention of scamming as more important. A sensible and well designed system can find the optimal balance.

Going forward, discussing the specific members on the list should be avoided. Their future actions will determine their suitability for either list. So long as you wish to move to a system based upon transparent objective standards and wish others to a adopt those too then you should be included. Each of out actions can determine if we remain.

Abolish tagging and focus level 1 flags optimally.

There is no argument that will stand up to scrutiny that insists tagging must remain in The best interests of the forum. If you disagree then present it.

Case closed , join the guild, or at least support a move to transparent objective standards and create your own lists. I don't think It matters that much, as long as you are honest with yourselves and stand against any that will not operate within The objective standards It makes little difference.

Or present an argument for tagging lemonade drinkers or that guy who called you a twat, or that ass hole who was too Stupid to adopt your opinion on something you view as very important.

I feel this guild will grow with every frivolous tag. So patience is key. Things will not change immediately. This thread will be very very long I expect.
  
marlboroza has avoided my direct question but continues to fixate on the lists ?

now you're just talking nonsense.

nutildah claimed i was in the "vast minority" here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53874513#msg53874513) i understood that to suggest by extension that he was speaking for the "vast majority" of board members, and said so here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53878609#msg53878609) i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion and repeatedly personally attack me for it, which is incredibly petty. get over it.

and yes, this is a tangent that has absolutely fuck all to do with the topic. there's no reason to write a half dozen posts attacking me personally over this in an obvious attempt to discredit me. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) your repeated mischaracterizations and petty personal attacks are getting old. you clearly have no intention of discussing the issue at hand. :-\


it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a comment about the current makeup of DT and how the trust system is intended to work. i said repeatedly that i wasn't accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but you decided to repeatedly twist my words into an "accusation" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879293#msg53879293) anyway. 3 posts later, you're still trying to attack me for this! wtf? ::)


i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references. both feedbacks appear to have been left after alleged trust abuse, which raises another important question:

part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.

in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.

@suchmoon, please respect that i'm just attempting to participate in a discussion about the topic. i should be able to discuss trust system standards without constantly defending myself from your off-topic personal attacks virtually every time i post. i am sure you are capable of responding to my position or questions without engaging in ad hominem attacks. i'd really appreciate that, thanks.

Maybe you can answer this:

I'll rephrase.

According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53889824#msg53889824) trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53890623#msg53890623)?

---

Question to OP, why other ICO payed bump accounts are not in "suggested inclusions" list? Why only hacker ???

A small erratum is needed here.


I don't know if this thread was a response to the gang thread, but I can say for sure that the gang thread was not created as a response to Timelord's ridiculous allegations (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226451.msg53857273#msg53857273), with no substance / proof, towards this profile against press. Nor it was determined by the comments regarding growing a thicker skin.

Seriously, it wasn't. I had the idea for this topic for a while ago and it sounded funny :) That's why I said to be counted as a pamphlet. Besides, I also stated that I was determined to write it after seeing all xtraelv's historic topics. Never thought though it would trigger such reactions, as Timelord's (including his deleted posts, in case you saw them).

Xtraelv also mentioned multiple scandals in his topic related to historic forum battles, but his topic disn't generate such reactions, although it was a serious topic. Mine was a pamphlet and I wrote it when I was in a mood for fun. But I had it in mind for since some time ago and I just waited the moment when I felt also in the mood for writing something funny. Apparently, nobody felt disturbed excepting Timelord, although I used expression as "the clowns cartel", "controlling merit / trust system" etc. People understood humour -- and I'm glad -- excepting him.

I also mentioned this guild in the nascent gangs section, but, apparently, TECSHARE understood the humour and he didn't come with replies against my topic.

What I want to say is that the respective topic was made when I felt I'm in the mood for fun, not as a response to Timelord's delusion. Regarding him and his feedback on me, I think it's clear that the guy "speaks another language", to say so :)

Regarding "Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.", I fully agree with that.

Those are interesting questions I expect this is not currently binary.. Perhaps the severity of the " abuse " as well as frequency should be factored in. Sounds very complex perhaps creating a system that makes all of that largely unimportant is best. Actually perhaps that is the only way?5

You didn't answer my question that I asked you and then again pointed out later that you seem to be avoiding it?

I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other.
The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence.

Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in.
I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies.
I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF.



 

Those concerns or views are largely irrelevant now. pre-emptive can be accommodated if that is what you are referring to. Which I expect it is, since nobody is claiming tagging proven scammers has any net negative aspect to it that is being scrutinized.

If it is true that you have never left a frivolous tag then you will have no need to object to the move being suggested. Your inclusion should be guaranteed. You would hardly notice the move.

I would be interested to hear your objections if you have any to the insoluble problems that tagging for non. scamming, attempting to scam or placing members in direct financial danger generates for members here.

Objections pulled out of an ass without supporting argument are as offensive as assertions.

If what you say is true then I see no reason for you to be excluded. Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.

Nice to see strong support for either side with a meeting I the middle and sensible reasoned debate from many.

Thanks for creating this thread and guild tecshare. I see many current and future members. Time is on the side of those that seek transparent objective standards that ensure the fair consistent treatment of all members.

Not really. You asked me "do I support moving entirely over to a flagging system"? No, I don't. There are too many tagged scammers to support this. Moving system to flags only would wipe all trust records and I don't think anyone will bother to flag each one of them. Or do you have something different in mind?

What about positive trust? How would you handle this? What about neutral feedback? You are invited to post about my trust abuse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190915.msg53892045#msg53892045) @truth or dare.

Lol, where?

iCEBREAKER


in my view, any movement whatsoever away from the current situation of rampant trust abuse and towards any standards whatsoever for negative DT feedback would be an achievement. there is all sorts of room for middle ground between the status quo and the what is stated in the OP.

nobody needs to fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude any of the people listed. i think that's one of the primary misconceptions naysayers are trying to promote here with cherry picked examples and personal attacks.

i was involuntarily thrown into this discussion by virtue of my inclusion in the OP, but i do agree with the call for a general shift away from "no standards" and towards "some objective standards". i'm willing to stand behind that, and i hope there are other reasonable people out there who share that view.

it's impossible to fully remove human subjectivity, prevent all conflict, or account for every possible situation with these kind of standards. that doesn't mean we can't honestly work towards a more fair system that is not characterized by rampant "frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags". it's incumbent on anyone who wants to move away from that sort of a system to do their own research and customize their trust lists accordingly.

Oh, so you do read my posts. Any reason why he stop doing this?  :)
Trust abuse is cherry picked example now? Tagging someone for "trolling" is cherry picked example NOW  ??? ??? ???

Pointing trust abuse is personal attack now?

Nice guild you have here.

okay, you raise some valid questions that do need some further thought to provide the optimal solution.

all "feedback" could either be positive or neutral? if a person deserves a negative that would at a minimum be a type1 flag. There could be further objective standards for positive feedback at another stage to prevent trust farming or unwarranted accumulation? another bonus of objective standards.

that could be open to community debate and discussion
nothing need be set in stone at this stage, this is the formative stage. Forming a union of those with a desire for the implementation of optimal system is the first stage.

Well, he removed that member that suchmoon raised concerns over right? so he is demonstrating he is working hard to take in all relevant feedback.

So you would like to move to a transparent objective standards based system that ensures the equal, fair and consistent treatment of all members you just want the process to be clear and established before getting on board? or is that not what you are saying?

I will be considering all of this over the weekend. I am certain tecshare has the best interests of the entire forum at heart. I am not hijacking this thread for my own desires. I am merely voicing suggestions that should be scrutinized and evaluated. Nobody arrives at the optimal solution immediately, sensible and reasonable criticism is key to the process.

If tecshare requests I reserve my " suggestions" for my own thread I will consider that for sure. I will support this guild regardless.

Freedom of speech is the most valuable privilege here, theymos has done an amazing job for many years. I may seem ungrateful l, but I'm not. It's just that I believe his
experiment with decentralized governance was a failure in comparison to his own centralized approach to things. Sorry about that. It would be unrealistic to think one person could immediately create the optimal decentralized governance structure on an anonymous forum. Perhaps patience is not my strong suit.

Working hard? Please.

One swallow doesn't make a summer. What he showed in this thread is that he is hypocrite, that's it. Ranting in reputation because someone tagged him, at the same time having account who also placed "troll" -ve rating in his trust network, at the same time suggesting others to include this account, at the same time some users calling this "cherry picked"  ???

He agrees this is good feedback but he doesn't agree this is good feedback   :D ;D 8)

Suggesting objective standards and at the same time can't provide proof to back up his words in trust feedback!

Can't back up his own topic and guild. Sees facts as attack. Deflects from facts.

not sure what you're referring to specifically. i was largely talking about the examples and personal attacks that have been aimed at me, which i've directly responded to.

in general, i think we should be talking about patterns/repeated abuse of the trust system. we should also give everyone a chance to rehabilitate wrongfully given negative trust. we should be seeking out peaceful resolution instead of finger pointing. you may have noticed that i have made painstaking efforts not to accuse any person of wrongdoing, despite having to defend myself from multiple unprovoked personal attacks. perhaps worth reiterating:



everybody should probably have a threshold where another user's feedback/trust list is not valuable, or is detrimental to the trust system. at that point, they should probably remove or exclude that user.

should one instance of questionable feedback over many years be enough to reach that threshold? it's up to individuals to make that determination. like i mentioned earlier, there is unfortunately some nuance required here and i'm having trouble deciding exactly how to deal with it:

I have read your post 3x. Although I'm hitting the scotch early this evening, I am certain that even sober I would struggle to gain from it that which you wish to convey. That is not meant as an insult.  Just so you know.

Please consider all of my previous replies to you in this thread and do your very best to understand that the lists are of small consequence after transparent objective standards are set in place. Also if a person with frivolous tagging habits States they will reform to abide by transparent objective standards,  then I say l let their actions speak for them going forward, for the good of the entire forum. Include them and observe carefully. Never be afraid to do that Which you think is correct. The transparent objective standards will protect you, if you deserve protection.

It is inevitable the guild will eventually succeed. Everyone wishes to be treated fairly when they realize the spots with advantage are saturated.

It doesn't look like you were from here. But you see, in order to call yourself this guild member, you need to follow these standards! Why are you ignoring suggested inclusions/inclusions?


It clearly says, "lets work on these standards, exclude trust abusers and include not-trust abusers". Do you see any other point of this lists? Lists are there for no reason? Hm, principle is also here for no reason?


If #1 and #2 doesn't exist, how many of #3 (regularly, repeatedly) is acceptable by these standards?

I want to know OP's reasoning and opinions, is it too much to ask?

suggested does not mean mandatory, that's is a very important distinction.

Suggest, denotes non essential. You appear to be fixating on non essential points and that is distorting your evaluation of the core points being made here.

don't allow personal prior grievances to pollute your critical reasoning capacity. Set aside those shackles for the good of the entire forum. Welcome to the guild.

Are we reading the same topic? What TECSHARE suggested is not by standards of this guild! I just don't see what is so hard to understand here. Some of suggested inclusions are trust abusers according to topic. TECSHARE is trust abuser according to topic.

this one?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.0

suggested... try a different dictionary.
It It's dynamic and of small consequence.

First address whether you want transparent objective standards ...then drill down. 

TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set in stone. Your assistance to establish their commitment will be useful at a later stage. Great to have you on board, when will you be wearing. the avatar and sig?

Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite.
Suggested..."based on these standards"

How can you reach that conclusion? make your credible case they are creating more frivolous tags than those in the exclusions and we will observe if they are removed?

you are claiming he is a hypocrite, you need to demonstrate your assertion is credible in the context of available options he has.

If you can, then I'm sure he will again demonstrate he is working hard to take on board all information available to him.

Again this is largely unimportant once peoples behaviors are governed by transparent objective standards.

If you are claiming that previous frivolous use of the tagging system should invalidate their stated desires to operate within the transparent objective standards Being discussed, that Is for the community or guild to determine.

I being very generous may not support that view. I say if they publicly express desire to adopt transparent objective standards as those discussed, then give them the opportunity to stand by their word. Personal grudges must be buried for the good of the forum going forward.

Now you are just trolling.
Ok:
Can I get clear answer?

TECSHARE and i are not the same person. i didn't create those lists. why are you directing this at me?

i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild. i already strived to work towards them in my own feedback and trust list before this thread existed.

that doesn't mean i will automatically include/exclude people listed in the OP, nor will i endlessly defend them re their use of feedback. that's not my responsibility. i am responsible for my use of the trust system.

you and suchmoon may be here to attack people, but i am not. i am here to discuss the standards themselves, and what we can do to build a better system via consensus. i am perfectly fine with current DT members retaining their status---i'm just hoping we can pressure them towards more objective standards, and that the more abusive ones will be forced to rein in their abuse or be excluded.

everyone should do their own research and customize their own trust lists. what's important here is the standards (or lack thereof) the community builds consensus around.


answered here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53892163#msg53892163) tl;dr = "it depends. let's have a conversation about it because it's complicated." remember, those who employ no standards at all (frivolous or opinion-based tags) are at an inherent advantage since other people can't "stoop to their level". this creates a frustrating conundrum that i haven't quite figure out yet.

I suspect the answer is less than the excludes, although as I said tecshare is likely too complex to be binary. The answer you must accept, could be beyond your capacity to fully understand and appreciate. That's why it' is only a suggestion.

If you wish to discuss each include and exclude .suggested" only ts can answer. Await his answer before speculating. Send pm for expedited one on one attention and explanations.

So long as you uphold the transparent objective standards discussed I think you'll be doing your bit. Or start your own transparent objective standards based guild and I may support them both. Perhaps I'll prefer your lists, or may be I'll make my own. Tecshare may support both since it does not matter who's guild it is.

Yes, it was unreasonable because you blew it out of proportion, repeatedly (millions of members), after nutildah had already stated what he meant. I take it that's another one of those standards where you get to talk shit but melt down when someone dares to call you out on it.


You said scam busters or whoever it was voted each other into DT, with no proof of any kind, when a more plausible explanation is available. So yeah, a conspiracy theory. I understand why you'd want to backpedal from that too but it's kinda hard to ignore it seeing how you built a whole mountain of bullshit on top of it.


For such a vocal trust abuse fighter you're incredibly dense when it comes to the actual use (and abuse) of the trust system. So you didn't review the people you added to your trust list? How did you pick them? Based on nice words they said?

This guild is just brilliant, and getting better by the day.


Nice pretzel trying to justify more trust abuse. Eye for an eye, what could possibly go wrong. Quit looking for excuses or wipe your trust list if it's becoming too hard for you to grasp your own standards.


Could've fooled me.

You said trust abuse is "cherrypicked example", I don't see how is that attacking you, it seems you are trying to attack users and when they respond you act like you are a victim.
Ok, got it, you suspect answer is "according to objective standards of this guild, it is just fine to create abusive tags (abusive by standards of guild)".

They picked them based on principles of this Guild, of course  ::)
...you remember those principles, right? "Evidence of theft, violation of contracts, violation of applicable laws"...
Maybe OP is trying to say that according to him anyone who left tag before scam happened is trust abuser(of course, everyone except him and some of his trust fwiends)? That would make sense.

the post you linked to was a direct reply to TECSHARE, (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53874974#msg53874974) not to me, so i didn't actually see it, since i was directly responding to nutildah. you are assuming malice where there was none. TECSHARE obviously interpreted nutildah's words the exact same way i did. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53874732#msg53874732)

you can continue making mountains out of molehills, but this point still stands:



nice, another blatantly fallacious attempt at false equivalence!



this is what i said, and the subsequent post is what i meant:


if what i did there was obviously so fucking horrible and untrustworthy and dishonest you should let readers decide for themselves. no need to follow me around making a dozen posts that (unconvincingly) beat the same dead horse! let it go dude.


of course i did, but there's like 40 inclusions on my trust list added over a long period of time. i can't recall every single feedback or the circumstances surrounding them. it would make things a lot simpler if you would simply state your claim ("user X is on your trust list and is engaging in trust abuse"). that's what an honest person would do.

if you want to point out a case of trust abuse, i'm happy to review it, and perhaps adjust my trust list accordingly if it's warranted. instead, you're just asserting falsities about my actions and piling on ad hominems.


i didn't suggest that. i'm trying to flesh out a complex issue and i'm asking for guidance about it from people in this thread, given the stated goals in the OP and the current power dynamics in the trust system. you are clearly putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. you're also ignoring these points in the OP, which i agree with, and which leave room for some level of grey area---not nearly as much grey area as the current system, but some nonetheless:


i also think theymos made a good point when he said this, which i'm trying to reconcile with my view of how the trust system should be used:



what is that supposed to mean?

you have launched non-stop ad hominems against me in this thread. i have not done so to you. i have merely been forced to defend myself. pointing out fallacies as such---especially in self-defense---does not constitute a reciprocal attack on you. if you would stop hyper focusing on me as a person and constantly trying to attack my credibility, we could maybe even have a fruitful discussion about the actual topic.


that's sort of incomprehensible. this is what i actually said:



i have only pointed out when others (primarily suchmoon) have engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against me rather than respond to my arguments.

personal attacks aren't necessary and aren't conducive to an honest discussion. neither are the sort of intentional fallacies i have been forced to point out over and over. pointing out intellectual dishonesty in self-defense =/= playing the victim, and it certainly doesn't mean i am attacking others. i have had to defend myself nonstop in this thread against attacks on my character. if you perceive that as me attacking other people then i'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

i have made painstaking efforts not to attack other people. i have only argued against other peoples' arguments/positions or fallacies. there is a big difference.

Oh so now it's my fault? ;D

Maybe spend less time talking about the trust system abuse and more time doing something about it. Just a suggestion, not intended as ad hominem.



Just start from the top of your trust list and do what you were supposed to do and claimed to have done. Lying is not cool. Just an observation, not intended as ad hominem.


It's not complex. Don't retaliate with red trust and there won't be any gray areas. Problem solved, now you have more free time to review your trust list. Just an advice, not intended as ad hominem.


Oh FFS... get over yourself. I couldn't care less if your feewings got hurt and I reserve the right to respond that way to anyone who weasels out of substantiating their ridiculous claims. This was intended as ad hominem.

sort of, yes. you are accusing me of including people who abuse trust, but you refuse to say who. that's not only childish but a pretty dishonest form of argument.

the irony of you accusing me of not substantiating claims...... ;D ;D ;D


i'm not gonna drop everything i'm doing this second to pour through ~40 accounts' sent feedback to find the one example you cherry picked. just be honest and forthright and tell me who you are accusing. i'm willing to review the situation.

you've only proven that you make accusations against people while simultaneously refusing to identify who you are accusing. go ahead and substantiate your claim: prove that the feedback you quoted even exists, then i will address it.

if not, it's obvious you're just engaging in another character attack. you are clearly engaging in ad hominem by dishonestly asserting that i don't review people before including them on my trust list. you haven't proven that at all. you are telling bold-face lies, not me.

let's try this in reverse. you're including someone who posts unreferenced feedback like this:

who left that feedback, and do you think that's proper usage of the trust system?


when did you prove that i lied? more of your endless character assassinations. :-\

you're telling me to review every one of my trust inclusions now. that doesn't prove i didn't do so in the past.


it is complex and you trying to reduce everything to black-and-white just shows 1. how unreasonable you are, and 2. that you are incapable of reading:




thanks for deleting all context so you could mischaracterize what i said, as usual.

marlboroza accused me of attacking others and playing the victim, when the exact opposite was true. the above post was a direct response to him, conveying that message. nice try acting as if it was about "my feewings getting hurt" though.

i clearly didn't weasel out of anything. i stood by and defended everything i said. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53892744#msg53892744) you continuing to assert obvious falsities like this is pathetic.

thanks for derailing the entire thread into personal attacks aimed at me. you've done a good job showcasing what happens when someone tries to criticize the trust system.

None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.

Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting. What will it acheive? It will make it much harder to leave abusive fake ratings under false pretenses. If they are required to provide evidence, they can't rely on subjective baseless accusations. Manufacturing evidence is much more difficult than simply making accusations without substance.




No coincidence. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. That is why I excluded you, and that is why I put you on that list.




Since you are so focused on your demands I prove my claims, how about you try. Prove to me mass tagging prevents fraud and is not a net deficit. This request is no more unreasonable than your demands that I some how document the internal mental motivations of others some how proving that negative rating spam creates signal noise allowing real cons to hide in it. You are after all advocating for more actions to be taken, I am advocating for less. Why is the default assumption that mass tagging prevents these people who don't do due diligence from fraud just a given? Clearly it is a fact frivolous ratings are used to abuse and result in massive amounts of conflict. You wouldn't argue this point would you?

It's TECSHARE. Do you really think I would make it up? What a fucking tool.

Let's now see the next level of weaseling you will engage in to avoid taking responsibility.


Of course you're not reviewing them, not to your proclaimed standards anyway.


Ah shit, well, throw them out of your guild at once then.


Of course you didn't, not to your proclaimed standards anyway.


Yeah wouldn't it be great if you could have the whole forum to yourself without anyone laughing at your attempts to play a savior of the horribly abused trust system and without having to substantiate any of your claims.

Remember who you are talking to, after all... I put them on ignore a while ago and am not looking back.


LOL. That's objectively bullshit. Droning on about a misconception you had about what I meant when I said "the vast minority" which was clarified before you even started questioning me about it... Either you have poor reading comprehension or were mustering an attack, take your pick.


Well, lucky for you, that's how the system was designed to operate and is currently operating.


This is all purely projection. You've been given several opportunities to bring evidence to your claims and support your overall points (which you are making, therefore the burden of proof is on you) but instead you chose to engage in more projection, which is one of the reasons why people are coming to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite.

As far as bringing forth evidence that "mass tagging stops scams", all that can be provided is anecdotal evidence where people say they might have invested in x if y had not tagged z, which you might be quick to dismiss as non-evidence anyway.

What is probable, however un-provable, is that career scam busters like Bruno, Vod, cryptodevil and tmfp have likely saved investors hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of dollars over the years, and this includes people arriving at the forum through Google searches and other websites in addition to forum members.

Its true that sometimes an innocent account gets caught up in a "mass tagging" and tagged when it shouldn't have been, but the great thing about the trust system is that the tag can easily be removed if a case is presented as to why it was incorrectly left. I see it happen on occasion. This is why comparisons to Mao and so forth are inaccurate as there is no fixing a murder.

Let's use this opportunity to nail down a few uncertainties:

- If an account leaves a link to malware-laced software, do they deserve a red tag?
- If an account is knowingly supporting an obvious Ponzi scheme, do they deserve a red tag?
- If an account announces an ICO with a plagiarized white paper and fake team members, do they deserve a red tag?

Its OK if you think the answer is "no" to any or all of these -- let's just start with some examples as they are all pretty objective cases of an account having scammer intentions even if there is no proof of them actually being one.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems pretty odd anyways from @tmfp. But I agree with you about the exclusion decision.

i didn't think you made it up. i didn't want to waste hours of my time (tracking down feedback ratings from 2015!) for the sake of substantiating your claim.


do 2 ratings from 5 years ago imply that he is regularly ignoring the standards? serious question.

anyway, i've already been trying to discuss this specific issue over and over:


you keep straw manning my position to be completely inflexible and black-and-white. i've shown that it's anything but.

i said i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild and that i strive to work towards them. those principles, as stated above, say that accusations without documentation should be minimal (=/= non-existent), and that regular offenders should be excluded.


so you can hold me to completely faultless/impeccable standards re trust inclusions (which i actually never agreed to---see above), but you don't care in the slightest about trust abuse in your own inclusions?

Nonsense! I want to have a honest debate about the topic, seems you don't. I don't see any logical explanation why you don't want to address these not-by-standards-suggested-inclusions-of-yours:

https://i.imgur.com/yueWTgL.png

You invited me to topic, I have read it, you said I am trust abuser, you suggested to include those accounts (claiming they are by standards of this guild) and now I ask you why is something which you call trust abuse suggested inclusion?

Can you please provide proof of connection https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53889824#msg53889824

You have absolutely no basis for the belief that that was my motivation for excluding you from my trust list. Pure assumption.
It wasn't.
(I actually know my motivation for my actions).


A completely baseless assumption, with no supporting evidence, to justify a trust or exclusion negative action: exactly what you criticize others for doing.

Techy, you should stop claiming you don't retaliate.


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.  :)

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18321;page=sent;offset=0) 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.

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.

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121611.0).  

But then I found the connection and made an adjustment to my trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-03-23_Sat_05.36h/2003859.html) 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.

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182903.0), 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.0).

This was two days after this false and baseless accusation here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837) that no one ever substantiated, but multiple people have used as an excuse to negative rate me over. Also lets not forget this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.0), this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.0;all), or this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118173.0). 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.

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

Are you now calling publicly available information slander?

https://i.imgur.com/KeSwmtO.png

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53895539#msg53895539) I know you have read it...

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.  :)

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. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) 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.

That is correct.

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

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)

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://i.imgur.com/qQ4xK2j.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

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


that sounds truly awful of me, i admit. :P

that clarification was buried in a later reply to TECSHARE. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53874974#msg53874974) naturally i didn't notice it because i was responding to your earlier post directed at me. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53874513#msg53874513) you can blame me for not reading every subsequent post in the thread before replying to you, but that's about it. :D

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

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. 

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.

Confirmed (http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5389/53899760.html).





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

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.

that's because you and nutildah kept attacking me for it.......
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53882615#msg53882615
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53892511#msg53892511
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53893544#msg53893544

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.

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?

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

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!

Does this guild have a sarcasm limit? (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201206/think-sarcasm-is-funny-think-again)

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.

It's more like.

If ( user follows Core tenets (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53868501#msg53868501))
  {
      "Welcome to the Object Standards Guild";
  }
else if ( user regularly and repeatedly ignores the Core tenets (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53868501#msg53868501))
  {
     Suggested exclusion;
  }

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

So you basically repeated what I said.

If you want to talk about not objective double standards of "objective" guild, start from here:
https://i.imgur.com/j7EXQ8b.png

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

"if user regularly and repeatedly ignores the Core tenets"

So you claim this is it, but you agreed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53893896#msg53893896) 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.

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.

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".

While waiting hacker1001101001 to reply, I noticed that you avoided few observable instances regarding Objective Standards Guild https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53895539#msg53895539, please...

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227770.0)   "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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=304376) is tagged as an alt of hacker:

https://i.imgur.com/GwNvGap.png

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.

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'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.

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 (https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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



#peace

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.

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.

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're wrong.

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.

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_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.

Noted. Thanks for more pointless topic sliding about usless side issues intended to cause maximum distraction from the actual content of the OP.

Well, it was you that put AIDS in the mix. Quite frankly I think it has done absolutely zero to help bolster your case. I much prefer the clown analogies. At least that analogy is good for a chuckle while still being rather insulting to your adversaries. Plus it has the bonus effect of  plaguing your adversaries with annoying earworms.  :D

Thank you for the open admission of your adversarial stance.