|
You could probably make a browser extension that would allow some kind of external point system for this... It would be kind of useless unless a lot of people used it but I have seen similar things done before. I think that could perhaps achieve your goals while still allowing everyone to be heard equally.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).
Right, now excluded all those that I have rightfully negged from this list and you're down to what, maybe 10% of the original size?  I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).
If enough DT1 members exclude Lauda then Lauda won't be in DT1 or even DT2. Your clumsy attempt to redefine consensus on whether someone "should be anywhere near DT" has been duly noted but luckily that's not how it works. There's nothing new to note; he tried this with either his alt gorgon or his main already quite some time ago. Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite? |
|
|
|
|
I suggest you set up a self moderated thread in the appropriate section and include a clear set of instructions for posting in the OP. You can curate it yourself.
|
|
|
|
^^^ Informed consent. Interesting. Half the time when a process server serves paper on you, the paperwork isn't entirely informational. What do I mean? The paperwork comes from a government office, like the court... but maybe from a bank for not paying your credit card payment... or from the IRS for taxes. It is a government form. On the form are boxes with writing in them. But according to the legal four-corner grammar rule, anything in a box, or inside the four corners of brackets - [  ] - isn't on the paper. That " " isn't on this paper, legally, because of the four-corner grammar rule. But the more important thing that they never tell you is (no informed...), when you get the paper, it's an offer to you for acceptance. The law says that if you keep the paperwork, you are accepting it (consent). But if you send or give it back to them with a notice that you don't understand, you haven't accepted their offer. You aren't part of their court process. If you don't accept their offer, and law enforcement arrests you when you haven't accepted their process offer, LE has arrested you for nothing. You can prosecute them individually as men/women for illegal, unauthorized control of your property... your body. Sue them and their bond. Appreciate some of this information since some of it I did not know. I've watched a ton of 'sovereign citizens owned' vids. I find it impossible to not come away satisfied when one of these 'sovereign citizens' a-holes get body slammed by the police, and see the police are the good guys with the patience of a saint. I am VERY suspicious that a lot of these 'sovereign citizens' are random dopes who have (legitimate) charges against them dropped for playing the role of a 'sovereign citizen' and putting it on Jewtube. The specific purpose would be to give 'sovereign citizens' a bad name in the public eye. I've watched things for several decades at least and I know that there was a period of time about a decade ago when the establishment had a genuine concern about this philosophy. It is almost inconceivable that methods for thwarting it were not discussed by the establishment and put into action. I find it very likely that the artifacts of an 'action plan' are not what we see on 'social media' regularly these days. As always, this is pretty much exactly the strategy I would come up with if I were contracted to come up with a 'solution' to the sovereign citizen 'problem.' Personally I find it a shame that such as proposed above seems to be working because a lot of very interesting discoveries and hypotheses about how the legal system works seem to be uncovered by genuine 'sovereign citizens'. Knowing how something works is key to attacking it successfully. I do NOT agree that harassment of ignorant lackey individuals at the bottom of the food chain is one of them...unless said individual is dealt in and cooperating to achieve a more sophisticated plan for an end-goal. The ' ...and their bond' thing you stated is more in line with a strategy which I think could pay dividends if undertaken by uncompromised entities. Personally I am pro police accountability, and against hating cops just because they are cops. Also you have seen here I try not to delve into topics unless there is some kind of documented factual basis for them. I have spent a considerable amount of time looking into so called "sovereign citizens", and as a whole share your disdain as they are usually at best half informed. The one and only person I would endorse under that field, even though he would personally not designate himself as a "sovereign", is Karl Lentz. The rest are pretenders. This man knows his shit and can put it into action. It is worth spending time listening to him. Prepare to be confused for a while and to do some research of your own. |
|
|
|
While your intent seems constructive, the application of this would be a logistical and ideological nightmare. One thing I have learned over the decades of being on the internet is some times the most important things people need to hear are often the most unpopular. Creating a system to allow people to hide unpopular information would be a massive problem. I will let you fill in the blanks with hypotheticals. I am sure the trust system debacle serves as a good example of how that might go... |
|
|
|
It is almost as if this prophesy has been foretold. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.
Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read. This is a good demonstration of what I am talking about here. Instead of addressing any of the problems at all, the trust cops only see a sea of potential criminals around them. Some of them are. Most are not. Usually it is just a technique of calling anyone who questions them into question themselves. You have to give us more authority, more control, you must obey because XYZ will happen without us being able to just indiscriminately tag people! You are all missing the point. The fact is even IF all these hero stories of how much you save the forum are true, the negatives in the form of indiscriminately harassing and driving out good users makes it counterproductive. Forum cops want their control fix, and watch out if you get in their way. Also the fact that you think you are stopping account sales is a joke, and the fact that you think requiring evidence for a tag on one causes a problem is the punch line. This is just pretext to run your own little inquisition and stroke your ego as you lord over all the noobs and pretty much everyone else. There is always some pretext for you needing this authority as if the forum will collapse without indiscriminate ratings, that is not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Are you the real RidleyReport? If so thanks for all the great work you do! If you guys don't know who he is check him out on youtube.
Thanks. I'm going to check him out. Do we have a NH version of Styxx here? (Styxxhexenhammer666) That would be great. Lol not quite the same flavor, but he is more of an activist/documentarian than a pundit. He definitely does great work though and has for a long time (back before it was cool). |
|
|
|
Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result. There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.
exactly communism in china has provided countless suprluss housing, they cant even fill their housing. All they had to do to pay for it was continually devalue the yuan to compensate for all the dark money created via fraudulent inter-bank loans. All the surplus housing there and to a large degree the prices worldwide are driven up by this. Essentially it is just a mad grab for real assets before the yuan is again devalued via perpetual inflation. I am sure it is all Capitalism's fault though. |
|
|
|
I would call that a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here. Then I'm not sure where we went wrong. Let's avoid the tirade of drama and talk about improving DefaultTrust as a system. The individuals can come later (or in separate discussions). Agreed?
There was a post by someone when explaining negative trust. Paraphrasing here, but I believe this is critical: "Is the negative feedback worth ruining the user's reputation?" This should be mainly for preventing the degradation of the forum. Scams, egregious abuse of forum systems, etc. I don't usually send out negative feedback based on dissenting opinions. (if there is feedback that I sent of which you disagree with, please let me know.) There are some cases in which consistent blatant lying that is not outright scamming (i.e. does not involve any monetary transaction) might deserve a strongly-worded neutral or at worst, a negative. **may not have actually occurred yet
I think you will find when addressed rationally and with intellectual honesty I will respond in kind. There are a lot of people who go around here who only speak the language of intimidation, inquisition, and relishing their authority over others over anything else. It is easy to say just lets agree, but the people who will continually derail don't have the principle to even honor that agreement as they have no incentive to. I am not aware of anything you personally have been up to that I object to, I am sorry if it sounded as if I was addressing you personally. As I stated in previous posts we need this core set of principles because it is what will ultimately achieve those goals of preventing abuse, scams, and general degradation of the forum. It is not rocket science. Look at any society without a rule of law and see how it is controlled. This forum is not quite that chaotic, but operates under systematic arbitrary enforcement. Arbitrary enforcement results in not only confusion of what the rules are but creates a feedback loop of disregard for the "rule of law" or observing rules on the forum in general. You combine this with a small handful of cliques that have made an industry out of going after scams or manufacturing them to then "bust" them with various levels of complication, and now you have direct incentive for abuse without recourse for those abused. This again breeds disrespect for any authority around here, as well again creates a feedback loop of driving away constructive users who simply didn't understand the arbitrarily enforced patchwork of rules, while actual scammers are back in seconds with a bought account. There needs to be a standard of evidence for negative ratings of some kind of documentation of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. This would cut out SO MUCH of the bullshit we are seeing right now. The sky will not fall. The forum will continue. There will be less drama, more cooperation, more constructive users, less scamming (because they can't hide in the noise), and most importantly people can enjoy the peace of mind of generally BEING LEFT THE FUCK ALONE if they haven't harmed anyone else as is traditional in this community. |
|
|
|
Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result. There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.
Interesting... most Socialist place in the US... "CAPITALISM IS AT FAULT!" Marx was a functionally retarded, hypocritical, incompetent, boiled-assed, leech of a man with zero principles. |
|
|
|
|
At this point I think we should just split Commifornia from the rest of the nation and push it off into the ocean.
|
|
|
|
I don't feel I'm a victim and I don't mean to imply that I am. Our disagreement doesn't mean anything else to me. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding. Yes, I am sure your comment about my use of language had nothing to do with casting anyone as a victim. Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue. From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49511282#msg49511282Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread? I would call what I linked a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here. |
|
|
|
[ignores many reasoned and logical posts, comments on tiny subsection in reply to exactly those same tactics] I don't keep up with this thread because it is long. I'm sorry that I have not yet read your replies. Do you have a synopsis that I can follow so that I may further educate myself in order to understand the situation? I would be delighted to truly capture the situation and create a well-formed and developed reply that is founded on facts. Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here. |
|
|
|
[plays victim card as you accuse opponent of playing victim card] I have no stake in this quarrel but it appears that you are using a combination of ad hominem and the fallacy fallacy. A public forum is meant for discussion on many sides. [ignores many reasoned and logical posts, comments on tiny subsection in reply to exactly those same tactics as is serves your narrative of choice] |
|
|
|
I made clear that I am not blaming them. I am blaming the adults who sent them. These kids have a right to express their opinion but these aren't their opinions and they didn't organize this on their own. Not one of them voted for Trump. The idea that the presence of an army of kids demanding the government strip their rights is provocative should not be surprising. Catholic school kids being pro life is not "their opinion". Its the opinion of the school/church/parents. These kids haven't even had sex ed. These aren't assumptions. I know this community.
Also, the black Israelites are not part of "the left" as you call it. They are a far right group and are such a small, fringe group that there isn't much need to devote attention to ridiculing them. Thats why the media isn't talking about them. The media never talks about them because they aren't relevant. No one is secretly on their side. The Catholic church on the other hand is quite mainstream and yields a lot of power in society.
Multiple groups can be wrong at the same time.
Yes, you made it very clear you are not blaming them as you then proceed to refer to them as an "army of kids" as if they are in the Congo brandishing AK-47s. So you are the arbiter of what are their opinions, and which opinions are valid for them to hold? Who gives you or anyone else the right to make that determination and judge their opinions invalid? I never said The Black Israelite were the left, but that does not prevent them from participating in the crybully tactics of the left. You do nothing but run around victimizing people, then when they react you take everything out of context and proclaim it as the worst travesty to ever befall mankind. This is why the left needs to get more and more extreme, because it is the only way they can keep people from flooding out of the left completely, because if they didn't have extremists, the left would have no one supporting them at all. Speaking of "mainstream" how much power does the mainstream media have in propagating lies against them resulting in direct threats to their lives? |
|
|
|
Well then perhaps instead of insinuating it is proof of some kind of dishonest behavior, you should admit this is what you judged your OPINION of him on. I have watched you and others endlessly ride these conflicts as if they themselves are proof of wrong doing simply because he reacted badly to being accused. This to me is just more evidence of the mobbing behavior you partake in.
P.S. Everyone take note of those attack dogs closing ranks with their own inquisition on anyone who dares question their behavior.
Playing the victim card again? It's up to you how you want to interpret OgNasty's behavior, whether this is proof of anything, how you form your opinion about him, etc. If you can't stand someone disagreeing with you to the point where you call them "attack dogs" then perhaps a public discussion forum is not a good place for you. [plays victim card as you accuse opponent of playing victim card] |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
