@theymos It's time to make DT blacklist.

[suchmoon]

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

I simply stated the fact that you're excluded. That doesn't require me to speak for the community, rather the community has already spoken.

Let me guess, if I tried to dispute your conspiracy theory about "trust system overlords" it would constitute a personal attack, derailing, etc?

And no, you haven't explained shit. Somehow magically everybody is supposed to follow your rules... which you can't be bothered to follow yourself, and you can't even formulate those rules without throwing a fit when a question is asked.

[1715181882]

1715181882

[1715181882]

1715181882

[1715181882]

1715181882

[1715181882]

1715181882

[TECSHARE]

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

I simply stated the fact that you're excluded. That doesn't require me to speak for the community, rather the community has already spoken.

Let me guess, if I tried to dispute your conspiracy theory about "trust system overloads" it would constitute a personal attack, derailing, etc?

And no, you haven't explained shit. Somehow magically everybody is supposed to follow your rules... which you can't be bothered to follow yourself, and you can't even formulate those rules without throwing a fit when a question is asked.

Oh I see, more implying then pretending you aren't implying so you don't have to actually justify your words. You are dictating to me what you think "the community" has decided, therefore you are explicitly speaking for "the community". "The community has spoken" after all, and of course in your view "the community" is a small handful of abusive users who all shore up each others power in this system.

What conspiracy theory? This is really simple stuff here. There are clear financial motivations to maintain this status of arbitrary application of force over the community. Gay frogs need not be involved. The fact is a small handful of people lord over the entire community with zero ability for users to have reliable redress of grievances.

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

[suchmoon]

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

In order for that to be true you would have to prove that I control, or am part of, the "little trust cartel" that you're talking about. Otherwise it is indeed a conspiracy theory.

And your solution is not viable unless you could at least show how it can be enforced. Insinuations about some "small handful" are meaningless when there are 60+ users in DT1 and you can't muster 5 inclusions.

[TECSHARE]

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

In order for that to be true you would have to prove that I control, or am part of, the "little trust cartel" that you're talking about. Otherwise it is indeed a conspiracy theory.

And your solution is not viable unless you could at least show how it can be enforced. Insinuations about some "small handful" are meaningless when there are 60+ users in DT1 and you can't muster 5 inclusions.

Yeah. No. I really don't. This is again more pathetic derailing tactics from the fact that the current system is widely abused with no recourse for anyone to have that abuse adressed. It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

The small handful of people I refer to are you and your pals that operate in lockstep attacking anyone who has any sort of complaint about your abusive behaviors. Just like corrupt cops behind your thin blue line you back each other up even when you know they are being abusive, inventing whatever narrative you need to create to discredit all complaints.

After all there is no penalty for you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

The trust system needs an objective standard for users to be held accountable to or this rift is going to destroy this community and turn it into a complete wasteland of fraud and trolling. I warned about this years ago, and here we are as it metastasizes and the little power thirsty trust cops are spinning the same exact tales to avoid their own accountability...

[suchmoon]

They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws

A standard can't enforce itself. There needs to be some action, some... I don't know... perhaps

penalty

for non-compliant behavior. So what would it be? Blacklisting? Exclusions? Are you going to get theymos and/or 50% of DT1 on-board?

you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

If you had facts of me doing the above you could knock me down quite quickly. But you don't so you resort to insinuations. Poor show for someone so vocal about "standard of evidence".

[nutildah]

Yeah. No. I really don't. This is again more pathetic derailing tactics from the fact that the current system is widely abused with no recourse for anyone to have that abuse adressed. It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

The small handful of people I refer to are you and your pals that operate in lockstep attacking anyone who has any sort of complaint about your abusive behaviors. Just like corrupt cops behind your thin blue line you back each other up even when you know they are being abusive, inventing whatever narrative you need to create to discredit all complaints.

After all there is no penalty for you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

The trust system needs an objective standard for users to be held accountable to or this rift is going to destroy this community and turn it into a complete wasteland of fraud and trolling. I warned about this years ago, and here we are as it metastasizes and the little power thirsty trust cops are spinning the same exact tales to avoid their own accountability...

Wait... Hold on a minute... I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

[suchmoon]

I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

That's unfair and a gross abuse of my constitutional rights. I did all the hard work and you just swoop in for the kill.

You could easily win a 6x6 here though.

[nutildah]

I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

That's unfair and a gross abuse of my constitutional rights. I did all the hard work and you just swoop in for the kill.

You could easily win a 6x6 here though.

Probably but I already invested enough time in making a 3x3 card. It's more like TECSHARE tic-tac-toe.

I deeply apologize for derailing the thread by my lack of reading comprehension and creating a hostile environment in the process.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Wait... Hold on a minute... I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

I'm getting cryptohunter vibes here, but I guess this statement is also harassment/abuse.

[TECSHARE]

Everyone take a good look at them all closing ranks in a really pathetic attempt at marginalization and derailing. Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok. I guess it is just another case of rules for thee and not for me right?

Suchmoon ran out his feigned ignorance card and called in reinforcements to make sure they preserve the illusion this is just me and no one else agrees. Also it is a nice bonus chill effect to any one else thinking of speaking up. These are the people responsible for deciding who can and can't trade here, with zero oversight or repercussions to their abuse. After all, who is going to disagree with them and make themselves targets of their harassment and exclusions just for advocating for a change in the trust system?

We need a standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.



P.S. Nutilda I know you are embarrassed you made yourself look dumb in Politics & Society, but this is too cute. Also "snarky" is your buzzword not mine.

[bones261]

Take a note of who left merits too.

Fell better now?

[TECSHARE]

Take a note of who left merits too.

Fell better now?

Kind of ashamed of you frankly, you usually are one to promote logical discourse instead of this mob hectoring that these control freaks depend on to constantly dismantle any discussion of changing the system that doesn't serve them personally. This place is just a big joke to them, and the user base toys to be played with. This is why they need standards applied to them, because they can't regulate themselves.


Especially since you merited this post...

Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.

The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating,  many people don't even bother to check the trust comments. Perhaps a message under trust to "click here to read peer comments" should be warranted.

That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right? Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation. We should be encouraging users to use the green and red numbers as a QUICK REFERENCE, then to do their own due diligence before trading. By overly applying the ratings we are just creating signal noise and confusion allowing this kind of manufactured crime of suspicion creating complete ambiguity as to who is actually a scammer and who is not. The net is too wide so you catch too many innocents, or for very petty reasons, people notice, then the whole system becomes useless for its intended purpose.

We need a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating, otherwise it can never be a useful quick reference as explained above. Even if it WAS a good quick reference, teaching noobs to just use those numbers and not do due diligence is feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by teaching them to trust a system that can be manipulated. Furthermore these trust police feed into this feeling by giving the perception that they actively stop scams.

I am sorry but this whole thing that has arisen here is what we call a clusterfuck and it needs to stop. I can't even imagine how much more we could have accomplished if all of this energy was redirected towards constructive things rather than playing cops and robbers and ripping apart the foundation of the cohesiveness of the culture of the forum itself.

I guess being part of "the in crowd" is more important than principles huh?

[nutildah]

P.S. Nutilda I know you are embarrassed you made yourself look dumb in Politics & Society, but this is too cute. Also "snarky" is your buzzword not mine.

Actually its yours, you've been using it for at least 3 years... both "snark" and "snarky." Just come up with some new phrases man. Its ridiculous how much you harp on the same subjects, year after year. I've concluded that you'll never be happy regardless of who changes what, so I promise not to interfere with your mission any more.

[bones261]

Kind of ashamed of you frankly, you usually are one to promote logical discourse instead of this mob hectoring that these control freaks depend on to constantly dismantle any discussion of changing the system that doesn't serve them personally. This place is just a big joke to them, and the user base toys to be played with. This is why they need standards applied to them, because they can't regulate themselves.

     Well that's a surprising assessment from you. I thought you regarded me as a patronizing asshat.
     I'm still not certain who you propose is going to regulate this "mob." If the administration somehow puts them all on a DT blacklist, how do we know that their replacements will be any better once they gain power? As the trite saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the end, it's probably going to be another clique. Like it or not, people form alliances here with like-minded individuals. This clique will likely seek to exclude those that disagree with their particular point of view. You'd be surprised what a group of people can do to twist simple guidelines like you propose and have it work to their advantage.

Especially since you merited this post...

Just because I give something merit, does not necessarily mean that I agree. I gave realr0ach a total of 12 merits. Now as a gay man who has a brown skin tone, among other things, do you think for a moment that I agree with anything that he spews forth on the page?

I guess being part of "the in crowd" is more important than principles huh?

      What does "principles" have anything to do with meriting a post that I found amusing? If something makes me chuckle, it has a high chance of getting a merit from me. Sorry that the joke happened to be at your expense this time.

[TalkStar]

Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok.

I don't know why you think that those merits are political oriented. There's no way to be agree with this i think. Merit doesn't mean alltime support. I always prefer to give someone merits only for his  quality works. It doesn't mean that i will support him in every single time in the future.  If i find him done something which doesn't meet the rules of forum i will definitely raise my hand against him.

[TECSHARE]

Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok.

I don't know why you think that those merits are political oriented. There's no way to be agree with this i think. Merit doesn't mean alltime support. I always prefer to give someone merits only for his  quality works. It doesn't mean that i will support him in every single time in the future.  If i find him done something which doesn't meet the rules of forum i will definitely raise my hand against him.

It doesn't really matter, it is just yet another example of how the rules are for some but not for others around here. There needs to be an objective standard set around here for trust ratings or else the community will continue to eat its own face. Eventually it will go past the point of no return. The trust system is too easily corruptible and open to unaccountable abuse. There is no reason people can not leave neutral ratings an open threads if they want to warn people of users rather than negative rating them without evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or facetious here, but I would like some clarification on this.

Scam accusations are currently enforced in the following manner:
1) The accuser posts a thread outlining their accusation and supporting evidence in the Scam Accusations board
2) Users discuss the issue, and frequently more supporting or refuting evidence is found
3) One or several users (which may include DT members) may tag the accused provided the evidence is sufficient

Now let's say I find an ICO who is advertising with a fake team - using made up names, stock photos, and fictitious LinkedIn profiles with fake qualifications, job histories and business links. In my opinion, they are breaking the covenant of good faith by being dishonest with their potential customers/victims. I tag them as such. You disagree with my judgement and make a post saying as such, stating that we need evidence of theft to have occurred before a negative tag can be left. (This is just an example - we could substitute in 100 difference scenarios here.)

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?


Edit: Spelling

[Flying Hellfish]

Is there a third option I haven't considered?

Of course there is a 3rd option, since TECSHARE is the smartest person on the forum (probably the world) we should all just agree with him.  

I personally think we should just forget all the in between horseshit about regulations and stuff, vote TECSHARE Supreme leader of the forum!

So once we get this "must break a law" to get red tag are we going to have forum police to investigate accusations, we will need lawyers (prosecutors and defense), then we need judges to adjudicate disputes.  Then we will need an appellate court (or course we have to be able to appeal a decision) and then of course we finally need a supreme court for an ultimate decision.  You know come to think of it we should make all users deposit 1000 BTC and full KYC including DNA samples so we can make sure we have a legal way to enforce any penalties.

Bonus question, under the new Supreme Leader TECSHARE is being a liberal a capital offence?

TECSHARE Supreme Leader 2020, he gets my vote!!!!!!!!!!!
 

[nutildah]

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?

You're exactly right, and hit the nail on the head. The guy just likes bitching above everything else. He works in "objective standards" for DT rules every chance he gets, but he never explains what they are or how they would be enforced. Theymos just made a move towards what he wants and now he's bitchier than ever.

Why does he think everything has to be "political"? Am I a fucking senator or something? I'm barely interesting in the scheme of things.

Furthermore, there is already a DT blacklist, and Tecshare is on it. The system allows for this situation to be reversed should he garner the votes to make it so. There's not much left to discuss.

[suchmoon]

called in reinforcements

standard of objective evidence

Do you really have no shred of self-awareness? Gonna whine about merits now? Make a good post and it'll get some. Hypocritical diatribes - probably not so much, ask cryptohunter.

cryptohunter vibes

QFT

~

~

Please stop interfering with TECSHARE's political campaign by digging into boring specifics. All that matters is that it sounds great. "Standard of Objective Evidence". "Take Back Control". "Drain the Swamp".