isn't the quoted portion of your analysis I left out above a very specific 100% unsubstantiated and highly speculative assumption?

I.E. you are painting a picture using an emotional/personal bias/presumption; rather than showing an actual clear chain of evidence that proves a fact instead of merely suggesting a possibility that lies buried in a sea of bullshit being thrown around between you guys.


Try and make it so that people not knee deep in this for so many years can easily and fully see the accusations being truth; not just assumptions or blank accusations based on the feelings of Betas.      

That quote you rely on is very muddy water for sure; as an outsider:   I see correlation absent of causation... I.E. assumption.

How would you like it if you were thrown in prison or deported because someone assumed something about you?

Example of a scenario for a red trust I have personally given:
The last dev I red tagged was because he was part of a dev team/project that screwed a bunch of investors, and did not put ANY effort into fulfilling those promises from what I can tell after over 30 min of looking, or even trying to vindicate himself from the catastrophe by trying to get a hold of the persons responsible on the project, or anything public even close to that notion.    To me this was a clean cut of someone who needs a red tag, because others may be ripped off by something he is attached to in the future.  Logic wins.

His idea of "fixing" the possibility for others to be screwed (having me remove my neg flag) is to plead with me to join him on some random telegram or some other crazy places to try and convince me he is a good guy.     If he truly was not connected with the dishonesty, or any of the like... there would be a whole chain of public posts and words from him about trying to help people find the ones responsible for the theft/lies, hand out contact info, etc etc etc.... not just stay silent and all the sudden wonder why you would get such a mark on your profile after working as a dev for a project that kept promising the moon but never fulfilled any promises.    This is why he still had red trust from ME.

All he needed to do was point me towards specific posts where he actively attempted to be one of the screwed parties in some very sincere and honest ways.....    But so far:  nothing but him trying to convince me to go out of my way to jump through his hoops (random telegram channels, etc).     Nope.  That is never gonna happen.    
All it would have taken is SINCERITY in ANY of his dealings since to be obvious and no complaints of trusted/high rank members (as per above) and it would have thrown my trust tag into question instantly.... maybe he got screwed by getting hired in to work on x portion of the project.


To end:  
I see nothing obvious here in what you guys accuse TEC of.    seriously.

Convince me.... with logic.... its not hard.

Leave emotion at the door.  It has no power in the world of logical analysis.

from my interpretation, neither persons were lead into a scam, or scammed out of money or goods.....  sooo...  that's my insight.

TBH, all I had seen is a snarky reply, rather than actual substantiation....  Everything in the current situation relying on a previous instance of the same thing, etc... but never black and white;  always a feeling or emotion attached.

and I am talking about a Red-trust acceptable type of substantiation.


No prob at all;  I am still trying to remain a neutral 3rd in my dealings like this....   things can backfire on the good intentions tenfold... but hey...   from what I saw, it was simple:  black and white as per the above sentence.

This is why I said before that I hope we could just amicably end this;  because TBH, from my analysis the only way to keep a neutral and fair uncertainty, I needed to throw my own conceptions into check/question to remain so.   But I thought by saying what I said, in a direct way, but allowing for people to correct me; would be enough to prove my point or give detail to those who read it;  but seeing things spiral for another page... well....  here I am again =)


I am a suuuuuper patient person; but in no way could I ever be a professional teacher.    If I have to repeat myself to someone like I do a kid who asks the same question right after you answer that exact question:  I loose my shit.    Good thing i'm not a teacher, and by my post history... it has taken quite a lot to make me drop my filter the 3-4 times I have on this site.


You seen like an alright dude from the conversations we have had in the past.

Speaking from a position of trust: many OG members have had excellent dealings with you in the past and present.  Being an escrow, buying, selling, etc....   upstanding.
^^^^^^^^^^^^  This is why I believe red trust has been abused.   This is exactly what its for (nobody corrected me, so I keep my original interpretations).

This just doesn't make sense for people to drag this type of childish shit on for YEARS. (i'm almost 40 if you want to add another aspect of context)

All the facts laid out being true:  I believe the red trust flag has been abused.


If this is untrue:
Correct me on how I am wrong;  I was very clear in my analysis; and my opinion will be re-evaluated.



I do see a lopsided fight.

I do see rules being broken.

*edit* this has been going on for so long, and its multi-faceted;  I am merely going off the single red trust I evaluated via my previous posts.  But this seems like a clear misuse of red trust.

That's the meat of it.

Its centered on how red trust was used and why.  I believe it is for obvious or proven scammers, faulty devs, etc....  people whom are a detriment to your security in transaction, or to be mislead in such a manner.... not to change a persons status based on a personal belief or something not in line with the aforementioned.

was red trust misused?   or did I mis interpret how its supposed to be used?  because;  if the concept of it being issued to continue theymos's removal from tecshare on DT is valid still;  then is it ok to misuse red trust in this instance?


is theymos' old word/action still law with todays vastly different system and rule set??

*edit* added formatting to quote and more description

I hope those points get attention... I think you were pretty complete in your explanation of what the situation was from your end; and given all other info; 

I think just those few points of unknown to me (use of red trust, and is theymos's old words/actions still applicable in todays date) should add completion to my analysis.

one or two pages back.

two, maybe three key points to address I mentioned.... my uncertainties about certain facts or interpretations.  The rest of the analysis was not refuted by anyone, and I believe it is sound.


This would clear up most of it to this point;  and it would be a fresh slate to go by afterwards.

At least I narrowed it down to two key points that need to be addressed.....
The sooner admins (or whomever it may be) see it and can weigh on those points:  the sooner we can have an answer to if these flags are justified or just abusing status out of spite.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything really (stop or continue if you want, l have no control over that); but in actuality I am pointing at a path to completion of this mess because of the current rules and regulations we have in place now are most relevant;  not the ones from before as they were obviously different.

Well... I can't say I didn't try...


My comments focusing on inconsistencies in interpretations of the rules seem to be pushed to the wayside to continue the circular debates once again =(


...and I thought some good had finally been done to try and put this to rest......  one can still hope it will happen... 

because from my perspective:  answering those inconsistencies/uncertainties would definitely take this to its end.

I've said what I could.  I just hope the persons involved could take some time to see it through.

find the pdf for your model to find out since it is different than this one I am talking about:

My Model:
Supermicro PWS-1K41P-1R: https://store.supermicro.com/1200w-1u-pws-1k41p-1r.html

Your Model:
PWS-1K41F-1R: https://store.supermicro.com/1400w-1u-pws-1k41f-1r.html

They have completely different connections.


No need to pm me and send a message in this thread.... one or the other buddy =)

For obvious reasons stated before: 
I am not trying to get in the middle but I am still a little unclear on answered questions in previous replies (I was very clear about my unsure facts) so I really can't make any final comments past this echo:


What I see is a trust system that is not exactly well understood by everyone, but I have already made it clear what I think it is and how it is to be used.   

By this measure alone: VOD is not using it correctly as His red flag doesn't seem to fit that criteria I outlined in an earlier post which I could be personally mistaken of....     Since I have never seen or heard of TEC misleading people to/or attempting/succeeding in ripping them off....  I do not see the reasoning being valid given my understanding.

Shit, I could be dead nuts on, or I could be dead wrong.  I personally don't feel like I am wrong.... but feelings aren't facts;  the are actually emotions invented in a land of uncertainty.


If the site is to resume/continue its previous stance/meta toward both parties:  there is nothing I can say or do to change this past the things I already have..... I would be echoing my words into an abyss; and adding more useless posts to this thread;  and I am trying to keep all of mine worthwhile.  The only comment I would have is that the trust system is not being used properly and is exacerbating these exact kinds of situations.  I am nowhere near in a position to tell VOD that they can or can't make his/her own accusations;  but that doesn't mean I won't sit as an arbiter and truth-seeker if there is complaints of unfairness and injustice.


TEC;  you are seriously keeping a cool head in all of this I commend it given some of the rough back and forth we (and others) have had before.   
If I were in your situation, I would have just walked away years ago as Its how I deal with insanity: 
I distance myself from it.   
It takes a lot to put up with it.



Now Ill be blatantly honest here:

There is a part of my brain that still tells me to be mindful of the fact that there was a bunch of shit going around about banned members being on DT;  and the turkish section, and etc etc etc...    Most likely pure coincidence, but I don't discount things that are very real possibilities.

If you are curious about why I am thinking this way:  look no further than my post history surrounding my interactions with Woolwoo. (an extremely sketch behaving individual that's word selections when responding to me; make me distrust him greatly)

even if its a "click to load image" in-situ.....  This way you know an image is there, and want to reference, click to display kind of thing.

would take more coding... but is definitely possible.

This is beneficial sometimes.


I do see some people's reasoning for it not being necessary on all board sections.

In my mind:  I do not know;  then again, my words don't carry any "weight" past what they are....   I only think they are as honest and clear as they can be.

Theymos created/arbitrated the rules and procedures.....  yes?  This seems pretty solid from a logical standpoint.

Theymos created the new trust system to help separate himself from arbitration type things.... (This is the gist of what I remember reading in his thread, correct me if I am wrong)

So... Assuming my statement in the sentence above is correct, where do we go from here since the new system was created for him to release those powers to the trusted among us?

I think in simplest forms for the recent neg trust that I analyzed:
If we hold Theymos to be on a pedistal of "my word is law"... then;  TEC can not be on DT.

It was the easiest way for him to be removed back then, and since things are vastly different on the forum now;   
Assuming the above about theymos is to be held as law:  your action continue that state of status quo by giving him that flag could be interpreted as ok;  even though the flag system itself is to warn people about being scammed, ripped off or mislead (on the same level) by the individual getting the flag.   If I am misinterpreting what the flag system is for;  please correct me now....  but this is how I see it to be used.   My recent red flag was to warn of a developer of a project that has mass investment, only to ignore the investors and produce nothing except losses.    I see this as a reason to give the trust hit... I  admit, I need to go back, and do my own little but more of digging on it as well;  but the facts stood up to him being connected to such a thing.


This is why;   Its not a valid flag "prima face", but it is deemed necessary to return the status quo.    IF the above is not correct... well....   You know my feelings by now I would think.

I'm not sure about the second trust flag;  as I don't think I even looked into it....   I myself removed myself from default trust and only have people added that I have personally done transactions/personal dealings with; or have never steered me wrong.

As an outsider....   Its a tough thing to sort all of this out.   But at least now I know;  and TBH:   I do feel for everyone involved in this.     

Hopefully... something amicable can come around.  It has been nearly 6 years...  The odds are in your favor for things to change for the better.

Yeah;  this is a big deal.  If it was unintended you you to be back on DT TEC.... well;  no worries... shit happens.    I have to keep in mind Theymos is the one up on the pedestal (as he was put and is)....   He has that power to set status quo..... and we should respect his words.  Shit rolls down hill;  so, this is a no-brainer in the land of logic.

If vod as well, has reason to believe you should not be on DT because of the negatives in dealing with you or is certain you are not to be on DT as per Theymos;  well... I see his intentions in giving you that flag.

Does it fit the verbatim use of the trust flags?  not exactly how I personally interpret them as to be used.
Does it return things to the status quo?  yes.
Do I agree with it based on these facts?  sadly yes... because we lack a better system to readjust for now and i need to read further to want to change status quo.

Tec, I hope you understand my reasoning.  I know you do good things, I have seen you do them.  Don't let all of this phase you; its just water under a bridge. (shit, look at my recent neg trust flag;  it was a retalitory flag, wherein mine was based on evidence of a dev likely to not follow through and be associated with a group whom ran off with investments and never produced.   It happens to us all;  If I ever make a bad call: Ill come eat some crow with you)

I'm gonna try and shut my mouth at this point as I don't wanna do any speculation.... that does nobody any good, so ill try and keep out of it for now, since I think I have seen logical reasoning.

I hope my words meant something.


*edit*  TECSHARE;  I see your response.   This pretty much explains a lot since there is no burden of proof needed for theymos saying you should not be on DT for [reasons above], as well as others agreeing it was so and with the decision.
I will look into that link and chase it back as far as I can.  Thank you.

Vod being excluded presently, and you not?

Interesting.  

Also interesting that you mention a trust system abuse issue.

hmmm.....  it will take me a while to browse your pre 2014 (that thread start) post history to put it into context.  I speed read it and i see your point.   Makes me wanna read back and put context to their reasoning.

I appreciate your patience with me.... and hope you understand my thought process as I am laying it out.


Its hard to sus things out sometimes; don't want to chance misleading myself.

*edit#2:   "Just because you think a person not answering as to how they are making a profit;  doesn't mean you should abuse a system of power to punish them for your belief."  This is the synopsis of your DT exclusion I can gather in the fewest words by browsing many pages and trying to figure out where friendly memes/banter and seriousness begin.

You are historically trustworthy,  yes.

You are historically honest, yes... you even admitting to your mistake goes in hand with this TEC.   I see this; trust me I do....  but the weight they put on abuse of a position of power (unlike the recent impeachment articles forgive my political poke of a pun), I believe was correct as its a zero tolerance kind of thing in my book.  If I delegate some power to someone and if they break that trust and abuse it...   Its end of the line for that power for them IRL.
I respect you dude...   but... yeah I see now.  
Its all in all rough cookie;  as for right now's edition;  was it technically a misuse of trust to..... shit....

Recently I have given neg feedback associated with supporting datum...  

*JK resumes his silence understanding more of the scope of the situation*

I will leave it to Vod to substantiate the claim from Theymos;   *edit, thanks nut*
and the reason for your initial removal from DT is still unanswered....  I don't know that history.

I appreciate your answer,  can you tell me if there is post history between you and these persons I could easily look up to verify it?  around what dates should I look for those posts? (helps narrow it down when I go to look, unless you link me)  
These are my thoughts. thus far.....   need more information^^^

Thank you for the respect;  it goes a long way.


Any claims of discourse in the form of PM's; well.... idk how to approach that as its in the realm of "manipulable" in my book, so it doesn't carry much weight of evidence unless an admin verifies it. (no way to be in cahoots with another party when its archived public, or admin verified private data)


Yeah I remember all the stuff going on in the turkish board bleeding into meta as well;

I did open my mouth in a few threads with some accusations based on merit abuse and gave my opinion, then later on some based on DT abuse, and several of the accused were Turkish members whom have banned alts....  yet were(are?) on DT using an alt when they should be excommunicated/expunged...   I remember looking at them and on at least 4 of them:  the evidence was solid against the accused.
so....  
It was a sticky situation [as it is developing to be right about this sentence], and my main commenting in those threads was focused on how insane and misplaced many of the words from wolwoo were...   he was straight up defending obvious ban evaders using this logic;  "they are turkish that you accuse and everyone is attacking turkish", not acknowledging the truth of the facts presented by the accuser of x situation (there were over 6).    To wolwoo the facts be damned, he wanted to be able to spread merit and be on DT.... and have us be ok with attacking people in a very extreme manner just for something as simple as questioning the motive of his actions/words in the slightest.

There were many things going on right at that same time....  

*edit* thanks nutildah.  Well taken.    I carry his sentiment, backed up by my statements on wolwoo.   Doesn't mean im against him, its just, not in a position of power with that loose of a "verbal grounds" so to speak.  To each their own, but the greater part of society can't stand it from what I have seen over the years.

Still most curious as to how you lost DT the first time Tecshare? (were you ever on DT? i don't wanna assume anything at this point)   It does add to the scope of all of this and is 100% necessary info.

ok,   as an outside perspective:  you showed the genesis;  and retrospectively the neg trust, with its reference.  I will be as pragmatic, kurt, and fair and impartial as I can.  If you want me to give you the courtesy, do me the same and leave denigration at the door;  stick to simple facts with references.   

You say it is a feedback loop;  but here's the rub... when I investigate this;  I want to ask one question:

Is there a link to theymos stating Tech should not be on DT Vod?   This would solidify the accusation of being substantially more than just plausible; and solidifies even more the need to have the below answered. 

TEC:  A deep explanation of how you formed these specific links to seemingly random people to get back on DT... is interesting to say the least; and I am intrigued to have cleared up and explained in detail. 
This being if the above claim by Vod (an extremely trusted member) is true.    Getting kicked off DT isn't a small thing, and it means a huge breech of trust.   
It does seem fishy from a purely outsider "never been in the middle of this" situation.   I have to be fair given the facts I can see ¿comprende?  I'm not here to pick sides,  I am here to get to the bottom of all this drama.  We have had debates before and I have a level of respect for you;  I'm not here for debates or flinging of whatever.  I'm trying to solve some obvious problems cause people feel the need to air their laundry in the front yard sometimes so might as well look for the air freshener.


Now;  I am assuming there was something substantial done in the past... which lead to you losing DT (either your action, or an accusation against you).   

The simple fact that you got back on DT from a negative position, by means of such random accounts....   Does not add up at all no matter how I try to think about it, so thus why I asked you the paragraph above. 
There was quite an effort put there to get on DT.  I personally am curious as to why which the answered questions will give.

I don't understand how someone whom habitually breaks the rules should be allowed back in.

banned for plagiarism, ban for ban evasion (more serious than the first offense).....     and still expect us to let you in as if you will suddenly stop breaking the rules even though you have given us zero proof you wouldn't break them yet again?

First account being locked out is no consequence;  it bears no emphasis on the issues at hand; aside from needing to be banned as well because it is owned by a banned user as you yourself claimed it in this thread... (you figure out your password or whatever else possible scenario is still possible)

Your only chance at a "new start" was with your original banned account replying to the email address it was originally given to try and settle the issue;   not create a new account thus avoiding a ban, breaking more rules.

I hope you see the train of logic that is blatantly obvious.

If I need to spell it out in simpler words with less description;  I will.   But as for now;  Not much else needs to be said to or from you aside from replying to the original email from the original banned account;   stating your FULL situation and case (everything, including the alt accounts and us telling you to contact this way)   and plead for your second account to be un-banned with or without restrictions.   
All of these later accounts; 

should
not
exist.

..... isn't the trust system about the potential for safe sale/exchange with an account?  Guy tries to scam you;  or rips you off;  neg ref... etc.


Tec isn't the easiest personality to get along with as it can be kinda rough, but i have never heard of him ripping people off or scamming people at all. 
VOD;  I have not had any bad dealings with ever... I believe we are normally on different sections historically... so i do not have any concept of you for any basis of comparison to this situation.


I really haven't been able to stomach much of this argument past page 1;  because (of what I have seen) it feels exactly like what has been going on in congress these past few years;  people saying [what i feel are] valid points, as well as gross misinterpretations of the rules and things being misrepresented.

seems like a lot of shit being thrown unnecessarily.

In no way by any of the things I have to say am I calling either person correct or incorrect in their actions....   I don't see enough justification from either side to form any conclusions past my initial sentence.

I just call it like I see it... sorry if anyone gets offended, but that was not my intention.

At first re-visit to the materials... I agree with what I see.....

and the above post made me put Vispilio on the ignore list.     Too many red flags surrounding him for my taste.