DefaultTrust changes

[Hhampuz]

Speculation is fun. I think minerjones excluded people based on the roll of a dice, unlucky if you got excluded, lucky if you didn't.

[1714030388]

1714030388

[1714030388]

1714030388

[1714030388]

1714030388

[1714030388]

1714030388

[1714030388]

1714030388

[asche]

This is just nonsense. I've never been critical of minerjones and I'm on his exclusion list

You do realize being on someones trust/distrust list has nothing to do with being critical or not to that person. Again I wonder if you completely understand how the Trust system works.

He can like you and still not trust you judgement. He can also hate your guts and still trust your judgement and keep you in his trustlist.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, people explaining their exclusions that just so happen to perfectly list everyone who has been critical of them should not be forced to explain their choices, because then they might have to take responsibility for them. It is best these kind of choices are done in the dark with no oversight much like the previous broken system. Everyone knows democracy works great in the dark!

This is just nonsense. I've never been critical of minerjones and I'm on his exclusion list, and I'd wager many others are in the same boat as he excluded many of the new DT1 members. His reasoning for excluding me is his own and needs no explanation, but your statement above is provably incorrect.

Also interesting that he excluded you, which prompted you to take him off your trust list and add him to your exclusion list. Why haven't explained your reasoning for excluding someone who has been critical of you? Why did you make that choice in the dark with no oversight?

I wasn't specifically referring to minerjones. I was addressing this retarded notion that no one should have to explain themselves because this is just another system with a veneer of decentralization while all the same people are given and have power taken away completely in the dark without any justification needed. You haven't proven anything except that you are eager to disagree with me.

No one bothered to ask me. Furthermore I love the constant logic of people like you who support the status quo perfectly willing to apply these standards to me while totally ignoring the original premise of the topic as if it exposes some hypocrisy on my part because I exist within this broken system too. Uh, no. I am not the one going around gaming the trust system to shut out anyone who is critical of my behavior in an effort to make sure they can never serve as a counterbalance.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Furthermore I love the constant logic of people like you who support the status quo perfectly willing to apply these standards to me while totally ignoring the original premise of the topic as if it exposes some hypocrisy on my part because I exist within this broken system too.

I'm not the one here trying to force other people to live by my standards. If you want your standards to apply, the least you could do is try to live up to them yourself. Not doing so is the very definition of a hypocrite, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

-snip-

I'm not sure if you are replying to me or TECSHARE here, but the way you've quoted me makes me think it's directed at me? Perhaps my previous post wasn't clear enough - I completely agree with you.

[TECSHARE]

Furthermore I love the constant logic of people like you who support the status quo perfectly willing to apply these standards to me while totally ignoring the original premise of the topic as if it exposes some hypocrisy on my part because I exist within this broken system too.

I'm not the one here trying to force other people to live by my standards. If you want your standards to apply, the least you could do is try to live up to them yourself. Not doing so is the very definition of a hypocrite, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

Please explain to me how I am forcing anyone to do anything. I am not targeting people because they disagree with me, so your argument is meaningless. If I targeted people because they disagreed with me my exclusions list would be considerably larger, and probably also include you wouldn't it?

Your calls of hypocrisy are just a pathetic attempt at false equivocation and distraction from the reality that this system is effectively a democracy that operates in the dark, and history shows how well that works now doesn't it?

[suchmoon]

Your calls of hypocrisy are just a pathetic attempt at false equivocation and distraction from the reality that this system is effectively a democracy that operates in the dark, and history shows how well that works now doesn't it?

I don't recall ever having to explain my vote or even tell anyone how I voted in any real-life democracy. But if you're interested in explanations maybe you should just ask those users instead of bitching that others are not interested.

[nutildah]

I think the answer is minerjones just don't give A.F.

[Jet Cash]

I'm not a big supporter of the current "trust" system, as it doesn't seem to have much to do with trustworthiness. Highlighting this just reduces my interest in it. Maybe in the new forum software we can have something that is related to trustworthiness in trading, and reassign this to reputation or some other concept. Reputation is equally important in my opinion, but merging the two concepts reduces the effectiveness of each of them.

[hacker1001101001]

I think Minerjones wants to be out of the drama !

[LFC_Bitcoin]

[asche]

Speculation is fun. I think minerjones excluded people based on the roll of a dice, unlucky if you got excluded, lucky if you didn't.

Or is it the other way around?  

I'm not sure if you are replying to me or TECSHARE here, but the way you've quoted me makes me think it's directed at me? Perhaps my previous post wasn't clear enough - I completely agree with you.

Yupp I read too fast

[TECSHARE]

Your calls of hypocrisy are just a pathetic attempt at false equivocation and distraction from the reality that this system is effectively a democracy that operates in the dark, and history shows how well that works now doesn't it?

I don't recall ever having to explain my vote or even tell anyone how I voted in any real-life democracy. But if you're interested in explanations maybe you should just ask those users instead of bitching that others are not interested.

In a Democracy we have representatives, representatives which are expected to explain their actions. Furthermore Democracies rely on an open media (free speech) and proper education, because without an informed populace how can they wisely choose representatives without being manipulated?

I don't need to ask because I know exactly why these people have excluded me:





I find it interesting everyone under #1 appeared immediately after I started talking about the abuse that the trust system allows to go unchecked, and these just so happen to be some of the people it would put a check on. Pure coincidence I am sure.

Asking them is simply going to result in a bunch of excuses and horse shit, so why waste my time? The point is there is no mechanism for accountability or expectation for explanation, and direct democracy with representatives operating in the dark is just a dictatorship with more steps.

[Hhampuz]

You seem confused Tecshare, below is the only reason why I've excluded you:

I reached out to you about a year ago to ask a few questions about Infinitecoin since it had seen a surge in price. Once I got a reply from you here you said you remembered my name, vaguely, but you think that I scammed your community a long time ago. You were not sure, but you thought it was so.

This not only made me sad since IFC more or less taught me all I (at the time) knew about crypto but it also baffled me that while you were not sure you had already in your mind labelled me as a scammer.

That's the only reason I've excluded you, because if that is your judgement (let me look through PM's to find exactly what you wrote), I can't take it seriously nor can I trust it.

EDIT; If you could point me to where you exposed my trust system abuse(?) and timestamp that I excluded you after that, I'll eat my shoe!

[TECSHARE]

You seem confused Tecshare, below is the only reason why I've excluded you:

I reached out to you about a year ago to ask a few questions about Infinitecoin since it had seen a surge in price. Once I got a reply from you here you said you remembered my name, vaguely, but you think that I scammed your community a long time ago. You were not sure, but you thought it was so.

This not only made me sad since IFC more or less taught me all I (at the time) knew about crypto but it also baffled me that while you were not sure you had already in your mind labelled me as a scammer.

That's the only reason I've excluded you, because if that is your judgement (let me look through PM's to find exactly what you wrote), I can't take it seriously nor can I trust it.

If that is true then you should probably remove it, though I do find it suspect you only applied the exclusion recently and not directly after this event you mentioned. I never accused you of scamming. I said I thought you may have had an outstanding debt, and that I was not that worried about it. I also explicitly said I would not be taking any actions regarding this either way.

I remembered you clearly, the vague part was the debt. How can you hold me to these standards when you aren't even accurately remembering what is said? Please don't make me find the quotes because I will if I have to.

I never at any point considered you a scammer. The way I saw it YOU MAY have owed me a small unpaid debt, and I didn't see it as an issue. That's it. The rest is a creation of your own mind, and I am truly sorry you were so offended by these comments. I do however suspect this is all just a flimsy pretext to cover for obvious nepotism.

_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________

 EDIT: There is a reason / nepotism is there.

[Hhampuz]

If that is true then you should probably remove it, though I do find it suspect you only applied the exclusion recently and not directly after this event you mentioned. I never accused you of scamming. I said I though you may have had an outstanding debt, and that I was not that worried about it. I also explicitly said I would not be taking any actions regarding this either way.

I remembered you clearly, the vague part was the debt. How can you hold me to these standards when you aren't even accurately remembering what is said? Please don't make me find the quotes because I will if I have to.

I never at any point considered you a scammer. The way I saw it YOU MAY have owed me an unpaid debt, and I didn't see it as an issue. That's it. The rest is a creation of your own mind, and I am truly sorry you were so offended by these comments.

Before the new DT changes I had all but 3 names on my trust list, after the change I took a week to go through it and that's when I added you, I'm sure there's a timestamp of when I excluded you somewhere.

Regarding the PM's, I did just look back at them and these are things you said to me:

"As far as I remember you owed me a few mil IFC", "I believe you were selling it to users or something and came up short, and in order to preserve the coin reputation I covered it.", "I am not that worried about it but my brain has a long memory for that kind of thing and your name is on that mental list. Point is don't expect any free coin, you already got it."

I did take offense to that and it did make me question your judgement if you were able to accuse me of something like that. You did say that you would not try and sandbag me about it but it doesn't change the fact that it made me feel bad.

Recently I've started looking at things differently though and you make a few valid points (Hey, I even put you off ignore). I've already considered taking you off my exclusion list as I've done with some others already.

[TECSHARE]

If that is true then you should probably remove it, though I do find it suspect you only applied the exclusion recently and not directly after this event you mentioned. I never accused you of scamming. I said I though you may have had an outstanding debt, and that I was not that worried about it. I also explicitly said I would not be taking any actions regarding this either way.

I remembered you clearly, the vague part was the debt. How can you hold me to these standards when you aren't even accurately remembering what is said? Please don't make me find the quotes because I will if I have to.

I never at any point considered you a scammer. The way I saw it YOU MAY have owed me an unpaid debt, and I didn't see it as an issue. That's it. The rest is a creation of your own mind, and I am truly sorry you were so offended by these comments.

Before the new DT changes I had all but 3 names on my trust list, after the change I took a week to go through it and that's when I added you, I'm sure there's a timestamp of when I excluded you somewhere.

Regarding the PM's, I did just look back at them and these are things you said to me:

"As far as I remember you owed me a few mil IFC", "I believe you were selling it to users or something and came up short, and in order to preserve the coin reputation I covered it." I am not that worried about it but my brain has a long memory for that kind of thing and your name is on that mental list. Point is don't expect any free coin, you already got it."

I did take offense to that and it did make me question your judgement if you were able to accuse me of something like that. You did say that you would not try and sandbag me about it but it doesn't change the fact that it made me feel bad.

Recently I've started looking at things differently though and you make a few valid points (Hey, I even put you off ignore). I've already considered taking you off my exclusion list as I've done with some others already.

If you read carefully you will see I didn't accuse you of anything. If your entire argument is based on this point perhaps this matters more than a bit.

EDIT: We have had a little discussion and have come to understand our mutual perspectives better. I think this was a constructive exchange. Thank you for taking that chance on cooperation.

[Lesbian Cow]

You two should kiss and make up.

Seriously, it seems like a minor disagreement from some time ago.   You boys are wasting way too much valuable Internet space on this.

[JayJuanGee]

You seem confused Tecshare, below is the only reason why I've excluded you:

I reached out to you about a year ago to ask a few questions about Infinitecoin since it had seen a surge in price. Once I got a reply from you here you said you remembered my name, vaguely, but you think that I scammed your community a long time ago. You were not sure, but you thought it was so.

This not only made me sad since IFC more or less taught me all I (at the time) knew about crypto but it also baffled me that while you were not sure you had already in your mind labelled me as a scammer.

That's the only reason I've excluded you, because if that is your judgement (let me look through PM's to find exactly what you wrote), I can't take it seriously nor can I trust it.

EDIT; If you could point me to where you exposed my trust system abuse(?) and timestamp that I excluded you after that, I'll eat my shoe!

Not necessarily getting into particulars of either of your claims regarding trustworthiness of one or another, I find the above bolded statement interesting, and it seems to apply in a lot of areas in life. 

When we start any endeavor, whether crypto or otherwise, we do necessarily know much of anything regarding particulars, and in that sense we may have an ability to learn from almost anyone, even someone with really basic knowledge; however, as we become more and more educated about the topic (including crypto in this example), we become a lot more discerning about our information sources, and in your case someone who you had been trusting to provide useful learning information about crypto had actually gotten repositioned into your distrust perception(s). 

Of course, in crypto, trust and credibility is not any kind of one-way street because frequently we are going to find people who are really new to the cryptospace may bring some knowledge from other areas of their life, or they may be holding themselves out as experts in a specific area of crypto, and in fact, for example, with only a year or so into the space, such self-proclaimed expert might actually be amongst the most expert on that particular topic in the space at the time. 

Anyhow both side are likely growing, and sometimes will grow in differing directions... whether subsequently perceived as scammers or not.

[JayJuanGee]

You two should kiss and make up.

Seriously, it seems like a minor disagreement from some time ago.   You boys are wasting way too much valuable Internet space on this.

You don't enjoy the public airing of laundry?   Hahahahahahaha.

[Lesbian Cow]

You two should kiss and make up.

Seriously, it seems like a minor disagreement from some time ago.   You boys are wasting way too much valuable Internet space on this.

You don't enjoy the public airing of laundry?   Hahahahahahaha.

I find it extremely unbecoming.