nutildah got red trust recent hours. Is the red trust fairly for him?

[cryptohunter]

I countered the negative that iCEBREAKER left for nutildah as it seems to be nothing more than arguments and a difference of opinions. I don't know nutildah any more than them being a participant in my campaign but when I read up on it I figured that was the best way to go. I also asked nutildah to remove the negative feedback they had left for iCEBREAKER since at that point it only becomes a back and forth where everyone will lose.

No that is not true.

There is not just a difference of opinion.

The project is a PROVEN scam. Or has origins tied to a scam. There is no room for opinion.

If nutildah has been constantly defending or excusing this then ...............well......

So you are making a precedent here for your trust which I am noting down.

Those supporting proven scams and defending them are not eligible for RED TRUST and you will counter that.

Thanks I will archive this now for future use.

Also you feel just arguments and differences of opinion (which this is not) are also not grounds for red trust and they too you will counter.

That's a good post and I hope that you really meant it.

[The Cryptovator]

I can't see any trusted feedback on nutildah trust wall on DTview. May be due to  iCEBREAKER is out of DT network now. iCEBREAKER (-1) Excluded by Suchmoon and Hhampuz and included by TECSHARE. To be honest I am not getting why nutildah got negative feedback from iCEBREAKER. Although read reference link but it's not pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

[cryptohunter]

I can't see any trusted feedback on nutildah trust wall on DTview. May be due to  iCEBREAKER is out of DT network now. iCEBREAKER (-1) Excluded by Suchmoon and Hhampuz and included by TECSHARE. To be honest I am not getting why nutildah got negative feedback from iCEBREAKER. Although read reference link but it's not pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

Well, since I have explained it several times already you must be clearly stupid not to be see the legitimate and factual reason. This easily meets the suchmoon standard for giving red trust. But guess what she now ~ to protect her pal the snake nutildah so he can rest easy again for now until he iCEBREAKER gets back on perhaps.

[TECSHARE]

Given that Nutilda actively supports this kind of trust rating for everyone else, I don't see any issues here. I would be happy to reconsider my position if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid though.

Aren't we glad to have TECSHARE in DT, what with the new "standards^*" he's advocating?


^* - doesn't apply to TECSHARE or his trust list.

I already said I would reconsider my stance if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid. Of course that would require them to admit their own hypocrisy...
Funny how my standards should apply when it serves your brown nosing pals, but not any other time I bring it up, but I am the hypocrite right? LOL.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Aren't we glad to have TECSHARE in DT, what with the new "standards^*" he's advocating?

Well, everyone is free to cast a vote on that with their exclusions, which I just did.  As I explained in the other thread, it was long overdue.  I haven't trusted TECSHARE since he stalked me (thread, PM, and finally in a neutral trust when I blocked his PMs) after I didn't feel like engaging in a debate which his inflated ego found necessary to win.  He's aggressive and arrogant and I don't think he exhibits sound enough judgement for me not to exclude him.

[suchmoon]

I can't see any trusted feedback on nutildah trust wall on DTview. May be due to  iCEBREAKER is out of DT network now. iCEBREAKER (-1) Excluded by Suchmoon and Hhampuz and included by TECSHARE. To be honest I am not getting why nutildah got negative feedback from iCEBREAKER. Although read reference link but it's not pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

iCEBREAKER likes XMR. nutildah made fun of XMR.

I already said I would reconsider my stance if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid. Of course that would require them to admit their own hypocrisy...
Funny how my standards should apply when it serves your brown nosing pals, but not any other time I bring it up, but I am the hypocrite right? LOL.

You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist . I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list.

[TECSHARE]

Aren't we glad to have TECSHARE in DT, what with the new "standards^*" he's advocating?

Well, everyone is free to cast a vote on that with their exclusions, which I just did.  As I explained in the other thread, it was long overdue.  I haven't trusted TECSHARE since he stalked me (thread, PM, and finally in a neutral trust when I blocked his PMs) after I didn't feel like engaging in a debate which his inflated ego found necessary to win.  He's aggressive and arrogant and I don't think he exhibits sound enough judgement for me not to exclude him.

And you just magically decided this the day of my inclusion into the DT1 did you? Why not earlier? Oh right it is not about the exclusion, it is about making sure I am perpetually marginalized to satiate YOUR OWN ego.

You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist . I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list.

If only you could refocus all that energy you spend on trying to look cutesy into making a logical argument...

The standards I advocate for would not prevent you from doing anything, you would just face consequences from other DT users as a result if you refused to follow those standards. Such a totalitarian I am demanding people be treated innocent until proof of guilt can be produced! Such Communist! WOW!

[suchmoon]

You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist . I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list.

If only you could refocus all that energy you spend on trying to look cutesy into making a logical argument...

The standards I advocate for would not prevent you from doing anything, you would just face consequences from other DT users as a result if you refused to follow those standards. Such a totalitarian I am demanding people be treated innocent until proof of guilt can be produced! Such Communist! WOW!

Welp, it's already something like that, albeit it's your own trust list facing them consequences. Forget the hypocrisy of not following your own "standard". If you can't be bothered to set up a responsible trust list even under the current extremely lax guidelines, you can't be trusted to be in DT.

[TECSHARE]

You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist . I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list.

If only you could refocus all that energy you spend on trying to look cutesy into making a logical argument...

The standards I advocate for would not prevent you from doing anything, you would just face consequences from other DT users as a result if you refused to follow those standards. Such a totalitarian I am demanding people be treated innocent until proof of guilt can be produced! Such Communist! WOW!

Welp, it's already something like that, albeit it's your own trust list facing them consequences. Forget the hypocrisy of not following your own "standard". If you can't be bothered to set up a responsible trust list even under the current extremely lax guidelines, you can't be trusted to be in DT.

Is it? I was on DT1 earlier today until one of your pet muppets suddenly decided my judgement could not be trusted by sheer coincidence I am sure. Again, I am perfectly open to reviewing his inclusion but, you insist my trust list is flawed and I am unable to maintain it. Last I checked I was more trusted around here than you even if you are part of the brown nosing human centipede trust mob.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Is it? I was on DT1 earlier today until one of your pet muppets suddenly decided my judgement could not be trusted by sheer coincidence I am sure.

It's not a coincidence.  I don't trust your judgement, don't think you should be on DT, and voted accordingly.  What is it about that that's baffling to you?  As I said, excluding you was overdue, and the fact that I did so just now is only relevant in your mind because....who knows.

[tranthidung]

Nope, iCEBBREAKER made repeatedly trolls in Monero, and others (DASH, for instance) for ages.
He also really hate BCash.

iCEBREAKER likes XMR. nutildah made fun of XMR.

For nutildah, it seems that his case solved for now. I don't know how his issues solved, but looks good for now, even there is no neutral trust/ feedback.
However, I thought that Hhampuz raise reasonable potential forces, his former red trust likely 'back-and-forth' trust between nutildah and iCEBREAKER.
That is at somewhat extent, Trust Abusement, in my standpoint.

I also asked nutildah to remove the negative feedback they had left for iCEBREAKER since at that point it only becomes a back and forth where everyone will lose.

Furthermore, it looks ridiculous to see someone got red trust due to support one of top altcoins, DASH.

[cryptohunter]

Nope, iCEBBREAKER made repeatedly trolls in Monero, and others (DASH, for instance) for ages.
He also really hate BCash.

iCEBREAKER likes XMR. nutildah made fun of XMR.

He must have had a big change of heart then because was a big xmr fan when i noticed him posting in prior years.

Funny (if true) same happened with lauda and spotty. I intially thought they had switched accounts when I caught up with them again years later in a few debates. Lauda was going through a good period where it seemed to be almost a reasonable human being and even helpful.

[TECSHARE]

Is it? I was on DT1 earlier today until one of your pet muppets suddenly decided my judgement could not be trusted by sheer coincidence I am sure.

It's not a coincidence.  I don't trust your judgement, don't think you should be on DT, and voted accordingly.  What is it about that that's baffling to you?  As I said, excluding you was overdue, and the fact that I did so just now is only relevant in your mind because....who knows.

Your dedication to pursuing personal vendettas over building a trust list that serves the forum over your own personal interest has been duly noted. I just think it is sad you still harbor all this resentment over having your own behavior checked 4 years ago. Maybe you can regale us all with more tales about how I abused the trust system by leaving you a neutral rating over it.

[nutildah]

Thanks tranthidung for posting this. Hhampuz had a good point about not leaving "back and forth" trusts, so I won't do that going forward. The situation seems to be resolved. And thanks to everybody else for coming to my Reputation thread.

[TECSHARE]

Thanks tranthidung for posting this. Hhampuz had a good point about not leaving "back and forth" trusts, so I won't do that going forward. The situation seems to be resolved. And thanks to everybody else for coming to my Reputation thread.

Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply.

[nutildah]

Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply.

I thought your view on trust was that it should be reserved for trade-oriented issues. Leaving trust feedback for opinions was something you were thoroughly against. iCEBREAKER also left a negative trust for Evan Duffield, the developer of DASH, which I think renders his judgment pretty unsound. But that's just my personal opinion. I also have a negative trust left by somebody who neg trusted Vitalik Buterin. Maybe I can attract someone who neg trusts Satoshi next.

[TECSHARE]

Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply.

I thought your view on trust was that it should be reserved for trade-oriented issues. Leaving trust feedback for opinions was something you were thoroughly against. iCEBREAKER also left a negative trust for Evan Duffield, the developer of DASH, which I think renders his judgment pretty unsound. But that's just my personal opinion. I also have a negative trust left by somebody who neg trusted Vitalik Buterin. Maybe I can attract someone who neg trusts Satoshi next.

That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.

[nutildah]

That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise

As evidenced by what? I never thought it was a good idea to leave red trust over opinions. As has been explained to me, trust also shouldn't be left for situations that could be handled by moderators.

I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.

... And what position is that? Your trusted member iCEBREAKER is clearly engaging in behavior that goes against your standards, which seems highly hypocritical coming from the guy who wants "objective standards" for ratings. Seems like he should be the one explaining himself, or else you should explain why you are keeping him on your list.

Our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think there should be a body that enforces "objective standards" for ratings while I think having a fluid system which attempts to regulate itself is more beneficial, as the regulators of the regulations are also only human and therefore prone to subjectivity.

[cryptohunter]

That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise

As evidenced by what? I never thought it was a good idea to leave red trust over opinions. As has been explained to me, trust also shouldn't be left for situations that could be handled by moderators.

I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.

... And what position is that? Your trusted member iCEBREAKER is clearly engaging in behavior that goes against your standards, which seems highly hypocritical coming from the guy who wants "objective standards" for ratings. Seems like he should be the one explaining himself, or else you should explain why you are keeping him on your list.

Our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think there should be a body that enforces "objective standards" for ratings while I think having a fluid system which attempts to regulate itself is more beneficial, as the regulators of the regulations are also only human and therefore prone to subjectivity.

Why complaining? you promoted and supported a proven scam. You are by suchmoons definition a scammer and need a tag?

Seems hypocritical to moan about it. Suck it up, your tag is more deserving than most. 
I think sticking up for liars and trust abusers is something now in your history and most will likely view you as untrustworthy once we get these teething issues sorted and the swamp drained.

I think more snakes will get some red as time progresses. Let's see how it all works out and how much you all favour the system when all your untrustworthy actions are slathered up in some nice red paint. Then we will see who wants proof of scam before getting the scam tag.

[tranthidung]

You are welcome, my friend.
I known you due to we are in the same campaign, nothing more.
Moreover, I admired you so much due to your earned merits. That's why I created the topic.

Thanks tranthidung for posting this.

Back and forth red trust tagging should never be used.
It is trust abusement, even trust is not moderated in the forum.

Hhampuz had a good point about not leaving "back and forth" trusts, so I won't do that going forward. The situation seems to be resolved. And thanks to everybody else for coming to my Reputation thread.