My musings about the trust network

[TECSHARE]

Please do source the substantiation for these claims in the non-theoretical context if you will.

That won't be necessary, because the timing of my essay and your inclusion into DT1 was purely coincidental.  Really, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it.  But now that you mention it, there is a significant resemblance.

<bantha drool>

I understand that big words are hard on you, but you really could have avoided all that hyperbolic kvetching if you would have taken the time to learn the definition of just one word:

hypothetically

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

[suchmoon]

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

Oh yeah, shame on DireWolfM14 for sharing his thoughts like a little girl. Your tantrums are so grown up.

[TECSHARE]

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

Oh yeah, shame on DireWolfM14 for sharing his thoughts like a little girl. Your tantrums are so grown up.

https://i.giphy.com/media/xUKTfpLS9BYUT2vprT/giphy.gif

If only gifs were an argument, maybe you would have a point. He is doing what all people terrified of addressing any conflict do, they dance around the subject never addressing it directly. If he had messaged me or even said my name instead of this transparent theoretical which everyone knows the subject is about, at least he would have the nuts to make a direct accusation. Of course he doesn't so he has to hide behind his shield of theoretical situations as if everyone doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course this way he doesn't have to actually defend or debate his position either, because it is all theoretical see!

[DireWolfM14]

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

Lol, no ignorance needs to be feigned.  It's really, really NOT all about you.  Really.

I excluded you because your inclusions are counterproductive to my trust-system philosophy.  Why did you exclude me?  Answer carefully, because it looks like retaliation.

There was a time when I had you included in my trust-list, but about 6 months ago I realized that your inclusion was incongruent to the development of my trust network.  So I removed your inclusion.  

[TECSHARE]

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

Lol, no ignorance needs to be feigned.  It's really, really NOT all about you.  Really.

I excluded you because your inclusions are counterproductive to my trust-system philosophy.  Why did you exclude me?  Answer carefully, because it looks like retaliation.

There was a time when I had you included in my trust-list, but about 6 months ago I realized that your inclusion was incongruent to the development of my trust network.  So I removed your inclusion.  

Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh?

I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway.

[DireWolfM14]

Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh?

I use the words that come to mind, substantial or otherwise.  

For clarity I'll try to answer with less pedanticism:  I excluded you because I don't agree with your inclusions.  I don't care to have those whom you've included affect my trust network's ratings and reviews.  That's it, as simply as I can articulate it.

 

I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway.

Well, okay then.  I'll take you for your word, I hope you can take me for mine.  I'm not trying to be accepted by any club, least of which one that will have me as a member.  I'm not trying to punish you, and the fact that you see my exclusion as a form of punishment speaks volumes about your desire to be on DT1, and that makes me question your motives.

No, I don't think you're a scammer.  Yes, I do believe you are a trustworthy individual, and I find you a valuable contributor to the forum.  I also think you'd be a pleasant dude to share a beer with.  But I don't like how you build your trust-list.

[TECSHARE]

Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh?

I use the words that come to mind, substantial or otherwise.  

For clarity I'll try to answer with less pedanticism:  I excluded you because I don't agree with your inclusions.  I don't care to have those whom you've included affect my trust network's ratings and reviews.  That's it, as simply as I can articulate it.

 

I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway.

Well, okay then.  I'll take you for your word, I hope you can take me for mine.  I'm not trying to be accepted by any club, least of which one that will have me as a member.  I'm not trying to punish you, and the fact that you see my exclusion as a form of punishment speaks volumes about your desire to be on DT1, and that makes me question your motives.

No, I don't think you're a scammer.  Yes, I do believe you are a trustworthy individual, and I find you a valuable contributor to the forum.  I also think you'd be a pleasant dude to share a beer with.  But I don't like how you build your trust-list.

Unfortunately I can't take you at your word, because if you were being honest, you would have simply raised the issue to me personally instead of attempting to avoid this critical examination of your actions entirely with this whole theoretical scenario, followed by empty pedantry, then by another empty excuse with no actual explanation of the flaws you are supposedly addressing with my exclusion. This is the behavior of some one managing a narrative, not some one with organic motives.

So once again, I will ask, specifically what is wrong with my inclusions? Who, and why?

[DireWolfM14]

If there is one flaw in my actions to which I will admit it's not taking the time to PM you and discuss my actions with you privately.  I do like you so perhaps I should have given you that courtesy.  In fact, I should probably start giving everyone I choose to exclude that courtesy.  But your repeated insistence that this fable I've constructed was purely about you is quite narcissistic.  It's not a good look, man.

To be specific, a homophobic bully who condones violence against those who's sexual orientation he finds distasteful was the final straw.  There are and were others, which is what caused me to remove you from my inclusions six months ago.  By not including you the issue was solved.  The issue remained solved until a few days ago when you convinced a disenfranchised ethnic group that you were on their side.  Ironically that ethnic group became disenfranchised for the very same reasons I excluded you.

[TECSHARE]

If there is one flaw in my actions to which I will admit it's not taking the time to PM you and discuss my actions with you privately.  I do like you so perhaps I should have given you that courtesy.  In fact, I should probably start giving everyone I choose to exclude that courtesy.  But your repeated insistence that this fable I've constructed was purely about you is quite narcissistic.  It's not a good look, man.

To be specific, a homophobic bully who condones violence against those who's sexual orientation he finds distasteful was the final straw.  There are and were others, which is what caused me to remove you from my inclusions six months ago.  By not including you the issue was solved.  The issue remained solved until a few days ago when you convinced a disenfranchised ethnic group that you were on their side.  Ironically that ethnic group became disenfranchised for the very same reasons I excluded you.

Yes, if you were honest and your concern was my inclusions, and not just looking cool for your new nepotist buddies by targeting me, you would have contacted me directly. You came to a conclusion first then decided to craft your narrative around it.

Narcissistic? So this is not a fable? You just got done telling me this thread is not about me, and here you are admitting "the final straw" just so happens to be exactly the same scenario that you cite as an excuse for excluding me. I think he doth protest too much.

Regarding BitcoinSupremo, he absolutely did not condone violence. He stated his personal views. He didn't make a call for violence. Homosexuals should be free from violence, and homophobes should still have free speech. Taking a freedom from one group to give to another is not freedom, that is despotism.

That said, in reality it has nothing to do with his politically incorrect words, really it is about targeting him for openly criticizing the nepotism, hypocrisy, and double standards of those maintaining a tight stranglehold on the default trust. Much like this thread itself, it is all part of a coordinated attack to bring retribution for the crime of resisting the nepotism in public. If it wasn't specifically crafted to attack, as I already stated, you would have simply raised your concerns to me personally. Of course that was never your goal.

[Vispilio]

Some local groups have indeed made consorted efforts to include members of their particular ethnic group into their trust-list, and it looks funny to the rest of us.

Just out of curiosity, why does this look funny to the "rest of you", whoever this tightly knit inner circle might be...

Ironically that ethnic group became disenfranchised for the very same reasons I excluded you.

Most local forum participants don't even speak proper English to come here and participate in any meaningful debate except in their local section, so naturally most of their interactions and trust selections will consist of the people they can comfortably communicate with.

In your analogy, this would be like Genghis and a couple of his buddies walking into town, generally minding their own business and setting up a new office somewhere, and suddenly Fiona, Sally and Daniel get very upset that these guys might make a living in their home turf, and decide to torch the offices of the newcomers, or at least "disenfranchise them" as you eloquently put in one of your earlier posts

Why does it terrify some people so much, when some guys who mostly hang out at their own section get to participate in these really minor forum dynamics like Trust and Merit...

If the local sections are contributing to the hits, engagements, statistics and the overall value-added of this website (which are recently in decline by the way), in a decentralized and fair system, shouldn't they also be entitled to some benefits ?

Why is it the case that some of you (who also incidentally each get a lion's share of source merits to distribute every month) seem to have a sworn agenda to prevent this from happening ?..

[DireWolfM14]

Most local forum participants don't even speak proper English to come here and participate in any meaningful debate except in their local section, so naturally most of their interactions and trust selections will consist of the people they can comfortably communicate with.

And I'm sure that's a huge factor.  I'm not faulting anyone for their use of trust settings.  Notice theymos isn't weighing-in on any of these debates?  He set up a system that's decentralized.  It's up to us to make sure it works for everybody, not just a select a select few.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: I set up my trust list for my own personal needs.  I never asked anyone to be on DT1 or 2, and I'll keep setting up my trust list for my personal needs if I get kicked off both.  It's of no fault of mine that my actions have a resounding effect on the forum as a whole.

However, there is a method to my madness, as I've tried to illustrate in my original post.  And that's exactly the point, maybe the method of madness I employ is the reason I'm on DT1 (still.)  And those who stack their trust-list with every single trade partner they've ever had, or their friends, or their countrymen?  Probably not.

But you know what the best part is?  Those people can still use their trust list the way they want.  It still works for them to go on as if nothing happened, because really nothing particularly important happened.  They just got kicked off DT1, no big deal, life goes on.  Or is it such a big deal?  If it is, one needs to question why.

[TECSHARE]

Most local forum participants don't even speak proper English to come here and participate in any meaningful debate except in their local section, so naturally most of their interactions and trust selections will consist of the people they can comfortably communicate with.

And I'm sure that's a huge factor.  I'm not faulting anyone for their use of trust settings.  Notice theymos isn't weighing-in on any of these debates?  He set up a system that's decentralized.  It's up to us to make sure it works for everybody, not just a select a select few.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: I set up my trust list for my own personal needs.  I never asked anyone to be on DT1 or 2, and I'll keep setting up my trust list for my personal needs if I get kicked off both.  It's of no fault of mine that my actions have a resounding effect on the forum as a whole.

However, there is a method to my madness, as I've tried to illustrate in my original post.  And that's exactly the point, maybe the method of madness I employ is the reason I'm on DT1 (still.)  And those who stack their trust-list with every single trade partner they've ever had, or their friends, or their countrymen?  Probably not.

But you know what the best part is?  Those people can still use their trust list the way they want.  It still works for them to go on as if nothing happened, because really nothing particularly important happened.  They just got kicked off DT1, no big deal, life goes on.  Or is it such a big deal?  If it is, one needs to question why.

Its not your fault your actions have a resounding effect, but it is my fault my actions have a resounding effect huh?

You want to know why? I will cut you some slack, since you are a noob here. This goes back a VERY long time, and involves many conflicts you have no knowledge of, and have no reason to care about because they don't involve you. Also, I am just a very stubborn motherfucker who refuses to submit to manipulation or intimidation as a matter of principle. One would think this would be a highly valued characteristic in a protocol designed to prevent fraud, but apparently the exact opposite is true.

One needs to question, why?