None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem.
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:  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 |
|
|
|
why are you directing this at 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. 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.
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)". 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?
They picked them based on principles of this Guild, of course  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.
...you remember those principles, right? "Evidence of theft, violation of contracts, violation of applicable laws"... This guild is just brilliant, and getting better by the day.
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. |
|
|
|
Now you are just trolling. TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set on stone.
Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite. 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? Ok: According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse trust? Can I get clear answer? |
|
|
|
TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set on stone.
Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite. suggested... try a different dictionary.
Suggested..." based on these standards" |
|
|
|
suggested does not equal mandatory, that's is a very important distinction.
Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. [...] Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]
SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...]
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. |
|
|
|
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.
Trust abuse is cherry picked example now? Tagging someone for "trolling" is cherry picked example NOW 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. 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? 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 systematic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]
SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...] 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? 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. 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? |
|
|
|
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.
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    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. |
|
|
|
Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.
Lol, where? iCEBREAKEROh, so you do read my posts. Any reason why he stop doing this?  cherry picked examples and personal attacks.
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. |
|
|
|
Bump 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.
I am inviting account truth or dare to this thread. Please, one case of trust abuse per time. Once one case is resolved, we shall move to next case. |
|
|
|
You didn't answer my question that I asked you and then again pointed out later that you seem to be avoiding it?
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 @truth or dare. Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.
Lol, where? |
|
|
|
He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.
Maybe you can answer this: Please provide objective number of how many accounts is allowed to tag.
I'll rephrase. According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse trust?
Question to OP, why other ICO payed bump accounts are not in "suggested inclusions" list? Why only hacker |
|
|
|
Are these accounts by standards of this guild? 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 ! Thanks for this, people above abuse trust. So no guild? As I said they would consider an respectful apology but you don't, and it makes them more humanly than you. So yes guild. So objective standards guild for trust abusers (according to rules of guild)? |
|
|
|
Are these accounts by standards of this guild? 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 ! Thanks for this, people above abuse trust. So no guild? |
|
|
|
The point is they are picking nits in order to distract form their long and regular pattern of abusive behavior.
How is on topic reply distraction from topic 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.
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 and other thingies... Edit:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31553Who did they scam |
|
|
|
Please, don't just talk, lets walk. For start post proofs of connection between justbtcme and comicguy79.
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... Techshare does not deflect! He criticize! 
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.
Errr...small reminder: Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systematic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
Why you don't want to work together with me now? Here you go: Can you please post proof that account justbtcme used account comicguy79 to do what you two claim they did?
post proofs of connection between justbtcme and comicguy79.
Please do. Are these accounts by standards of this guild? |
|
|
|
~
At this point, I don't see how it is related to topic about coronavirus: Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. [...]
The charge of making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of visa fraud provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of acting as an agent of a foreign government provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of conspiracy provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of smuggling goods from the United States provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.
I reported a few of these drive-by posts where TECSHARE copies a title of some Youtube video or a blog post and adds a link, nothing else. No summary, no opinion, no content of any significance. Good to see mods taking action on this low-effort low-value link spam.
I wasn't aware this is against forum rules  |
|
|
|
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. 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): 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. 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. |
|
|
|
~
So you agree with TECSHARE's guild but you don't agree with TECSHARE's guild? 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. |
|
|
|
~
So you agree with TECSHARE's guild but you don't agree with TECSHARE's guild Seems you missed this again: Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systematic abuse.
Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
