IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ?

[hacker1001101001]

Why would you merit post where Tec's hare calls lauda scammer and you defend OG when other users call him out and you don't send them merit?

Makes no sense, double standards.

I am not the only one who thinks the posts is constructive and deserves merit. I think this is the most right thing to say.

Aside from anything else in TECSHARE's post that OP merited, I thought it was amusing because of the pajeet comment and it was well-written, both of which might cause someone to merit it even if they didn't agree with anything else.

Rather, here I don't even intended to target any specific user, the thread is created for the sole reason of discussion of the general views around such types of red trusting issues and what changes could be made by the community to avoid such. Please don't boil this under double standards.

[1714844454]

1714844454

[1714844454]

1714844454

[1714844454]

1714844454

[DireWolfM14]

~

Thanks for the response.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that keeps you on my excluded list.

We both know the only reason I'm on your distrust list is because I put you on mine.

This has nothing to do with the topic or the rating he received.

That's why I apologized for going off topic in the first place.  That's why I asked for clarification on something (unrelated) that struck me as odd.

If you want to scrutinize the target of abuse until you feel you have reached a point of false equivalence start your own topic on the matter if it is so critically important.

I'm not here to scrutinize the victim, I have no desire to do so.  I'm not looking for any excuses or false equivalencies.  But, being the victim of abuse does not shield one from the ramifications of also being abusive.  Just because this topic was started to point out one type of abuse doesn't mean I should ignore the potential existence of another.

[TECSHARE]

~

Thanks for the response.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that keeps you on my excluded list.

We both know the only reason I'm on your distrust list is because I put you on mine.

This has nothing to do with the topic or the rating he received.

That's why I apologized for going off topic in the first place.  That's why I asked for clarification on something (unrelated) that struck me as odd.

If you want to scrutinize the target of abuse until you feel you have reached a point of false equivalence start your own topic on the matter if it is so critically important.

I'm not here to scrutinize the victim, I have no desire to do so.  I'm not looking for any excuses or false equivalencies.  But, being the victim of abuse does not shield one from the ramifications of also being abusive.  Just because this topic was started to point out one type of abuse doesn't mean I should ignore the potential existence of another.

Did I say it was why I put you on my excluded list or why you stay there? You are a dope who buys the whipped up horse shit of the DT mob clowns and excluded me when I didn't do anything wrong. Of course that is why I excluded you, because you either have no common sense or you are on your knees in front of them. Either way I don't want you on my list.

You apologized... in the same post, then posted it anyway. Why actually post it if you were sorry and knew it was off topic? Excuse me if I think you are full of shit with your disingenuous apology here. Yeah, right, you are not here to scrutinize the victim, just be the one to dredge up unrelated bullshit completely off topic which conveniently not only misdirects the actual topic of discussion but then shifts blame to the accuser. How convenient you get curious about such a thing right now in the middle of this topic.

This is why I don't trust you, because you pretend to be moderate and nice but really you are full of shit and it is covered by a thin veneer of please and thank you. You are the new front line for the DT mob playing the role of the moderate so you can inject your bullshit for them to follow up and do the real hammering. You played the same role with me. Either you are too dumb and naive to recognize this dynamic or you are just plain old full of shit.

[dragonvslinux]

I think mostly the "scambuster" crowd, who have/had loyalty to Lauda, and I find tend to be more authoritarian and power-seeking in nature, those gunning to become DT and to create their reputations, who got the head start..
It has and will take time for us libertarian minded folk to balance that out, but will happen..

But it has sense been slowly balancing and the initial head start is loosing its advantage.. Very slowly.. Maybe another year..

I was curious by your comment the other day, so after scraping a little data together, it seems there's a good chance next year indeed the flippening might occur; sometime between Spring and Autumn would be the forecast DT1 wise. Of course anything could happen in the meantime, but if these power & logarithmic curves are anything to go, while the rate of behavior/attitude maintains itself, then someone is losing their power - only statistically speaking of course. Yup, I went there.

[suchmoon]

~

Being a plagiarizing sockpuppeting weasel is still not a good reason to get red trust, let alone sending A FUCKING MERIT. IMO.

[hacker1001101001]

~

Being a plagiarizing sockpuppeting weasel is still not a good reason to get red trust, let alone sending A FUCKING MERIT. IMO.

It is not a good reason to hamper someones ability to trade smoothly here, this is an open forum, discussed many times before and why is it that difficult for this type of users to use trust ratings to indicate scammer only? The rating I am talking about are on the people who have not scammed any funds, with no real victims. You know, it's even hard for some people around to accept apologise !

[suchmoon]

It is not a good reason to hamper someones ability to trade smoothly here, this is an open forum, discussed many times before and why is it that difficult for this type of users to use trust ratings to indicate scammer only? The rating I am talking about are on the people who have not scammed any funds, with no real victims. You know, it's even hard for some people around to accept apologise !

Hold your horses. Trust ratings can and should be used for a lot of stuff that isn't outright scamming, stop trying to define it how it suits you. If you want to go that route, just exclude Lauda and proceed on your merry way - you got your own trust system in your custom trust list.

But if you're talking about "ability to trade smoothly" then you're probably talking about DT and I doubt that even with scam-friendly weasels like TECSHARE in it we'll stoop down to the "do any shady shit just don't steal money" standard.

[TECSHARE]

It is not a good reason to hamper someones ability to trade smoothly here, this is an open forum, discussed many times before and why is it that difficult for this type of users to use trust ratings to indicate scammer only? The rating I am talking about are on the people who have not scammed any funds, with no real victims. You know, it's even hard for some people around to accept apologise !

Hold your horses. Trust ratings can and should be used for a lot of stuff that isn't outright scamming, stop trying to define it how it suits you. If you want to go that route, just exclude Lauda and proceed on your merry way - you got your own trust system in your custom trust list.

But if you're talking about "ability to trade smoothly" then you're probably talking about DT and I doubt that even with scam-friendly weasels like TECSHARE in it we'll stoop down to the "do any shady shit just don't steal money" standard.

Just because I don't think your wide net shotgunning strategy in a futile attempt to catch minor scammers justifies the means doesn't make me "scam friendly". As I stated before, with a little common sense and some due diligence the vast majority of the people you claim to be protecting us from can be avoided. Power tripping control freak dictators can not be escaped and everyone suffers from them. I know you enjoy injecting yourself into peoples business as much as possible, but I as well as many others here enjoy an atmosphere of being left the fuck alone unless otherwise victimizing others. Your internet cop strategy is just simply antithetical to that goal. If you want to wipe bum bums, child proof everything, and kiss ouchies have some kids.

[suchmoon]

your wide net shotgunning strategy
you claim to be protecting us
you enjoy injecting yourself into peoples business as much as possible
Your internet cop strategy
you want to wipe bum bums, child proof everything, and kiss ouchies

What a vivid imagination. Fits well with your trust farming and retaliatory bullshit that you want to be left alone at.

[DireWolfM14]

You are a dope who buys the whipped up horse shit of the DT mob clowns and excluded me when I didn't do anything wrong. Of course that is why I excluded you, because you either have no common sense or you are on your knees in front of them. Either way I don't want you on my list.

I excluded you for one reason and one reason only; I don't like the philosophy you use to build your trust list.  I don't think that adding everyone with whom you've had a successful trade is a good strategy.  Regardless of our personal differences, if you applied a trust-list philosophy that more closely aligned with mine, you would be on my inclusion list, not exclusions.  I leave my personal differences out of the decision.

However, recently I've perceived something else that I find damaging; I think you've been trying to manipulate the system.  You've been including people with the hope that they include you.  You've been adding folks from specific local boards who have running disagreements with other DT1 members, again in the hope that they add you.  Of course there's no way to prove this, but it's my belief that you are operating this way.  

This reciprocal/retaliatory approach to the trust system is damaging, and goes against everything you claim to be fighting for.

Being a plagiarizing sockpuppeting weasel is still not a good reason to get red trust, let alone sending A FUCKING MERIT. IMO.

By no means was I trying to conflate the two, or suggest that the OP's behavior justified the negative review left by Lauda.  I completely disagree with this and a few other reviews recently left by Lauda, so I did what I feel is right; I exclude Lauda from my trust settings shortly after I read the OP of this thread.

[TECSHARE]

What a vivid imagination. Fits well with your trust farming and retaliatory bullshit that you want to be left alone at.

After 8 years of being active here, my "trust farming" strategy is certainly taking the slow approach isn't it? Almost like what you describe as  "trust farming" is indistinguishable from being an active and trusted member here for many years. What retaliatory bullshit? Please do cite specific examples.

You are a dope who buys the whipped up horse shit of the DT mob clowns and excluded me when I didn't do anything wrong. Of course that is why I excluded you, because you either have no common sense or you are on your knees in front of them. Either way I don't want you on my list.

I excluded you for one reason and one reason only; I don't like the philosophy you use to build your trust list.  I don't think that adding everyone with whom you've had a successful trade is a good strategy.  Regardless of our personal differences, if you applied a trust-list philosophy that more closely aligned with mine, you would be on my inclusion list, not exclusions.  I leave my personal differences out of the decision.

However, recently I've perceived something else that I find damaging; I think you've been trying to manipulate the system.  You've been including people with the hope that they include you.  You've been adding folks from specific local boards who have running disagreements with other DT1 members, again in the hope that they add you.  Of course there's no way to prove this, but it's my belief that you are operating this way.  

This reciprocal/retaliatory approach to the trust system is damaging, and goes against everything you claim to be fighting for.

Being a plagiarizing sockpuppeting weasel is still not a good reason to get red trust, let alone sending A FUCKING MERIT. IMO.

By no means was I trying to conflate the two, or suggest that the OP's behavior justified the negative review left by Lauda.  I completely disagree with this and a few other reviews recently left by Lauda, so I did what I feel is right; I exclude Lauda from my trust settings shortly after I read the OP of this thread.

As I suspected, you are a naive dope sucking down stories from people with a grudge feeding you fairy tales. I absolutely do not add everyone I have had a successful trade with to my trust list. If I did that my trust list would include several HUNDREDS of people. This accusation is just pure horse shit.

Lets for the sake of argument assume you leave personal differences out of the decision, you aren't very good at gauging that in others and simply take the words of those with long standing vendettas at face value. The accusation you are referring to here is first of all made by Nutilduhh who has a very long standing gripe stemming from their interactions with me not only involving the trust system but from discussions in Politics & Society. This of course all happened the same time this thread occurred where I successfully mediated a dispute between some members of the Turkish section and Timelord2067. At this point some of them included me on their trust list putting me back on default trust triggering a string of accusations and attacks from the same group of people I have been calling out for their behavior for some time.

I am trying to help build a culture of restorative not punitive justice here and the goobers following me around like little harpies for calling them out about their own punitive behavior get dopes like you to join in their chorus and do their bidding because you don't know any better. You are being used as a tool. Are you arguing that I shouldn't be trying to help resolve disputes because some one MIGHT include me after? GOD FORBID people start doing things to reduce disputes and build trust because of it right? I mean that would be horrible! Can you tell me exactly how I can continue to do this and avoid these accusations of manipulation in the future? I would love to hear your solution.

First of all lets address your "beliefs". You are claiming now you know what goes on inside my head and should be judged based on what you IMAGINE my goals are? How could that possibly be damaging to apply this methodology to the community right? I mean why base ratings and exclusions on observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws when you can just IMAGINE some one did something wrong? Just so it is clearly and openly stated, this has never been my goal, and the aspersions cast in the original thread accusing of this are yet again a long string of speculations that could literally be applied to ANY user here who is active using the trust system.

In the case of the Turkish members, I got involved because they are a group OUTSIDE of the current one controlling the default trust, which is I suspect why they were being targeted because they would dilute control the current group at the time had on it. This is also exactly why I was targeted for helping them understand and better approach the situation instead of just getting themselves all excluded and making them irrelevant. My goal was never inclusion, but to break the iron grip the current default trust group has on the system, making it more difficult for them to act with impunity. Of course around here, no good deed goes unpunished. Call in the clowns. Don't forget your red nose DireWolfM14.

[suchmoon]

Please do cite specific examples.

LOL

Please do create your own thread about your amnesia issues. By no means ever try to provide specific examples of shit you're accusing others of because where's the fun in that, you sleazy hypocrite.

[wolwoo]

Please do cite specific examples.

LOL

Please do create your own thread about your amnesia issues. By no means ever try to provide specific examples of shit you're accusing others of because where's the fun in that, you sleazy hypocrite.

ooo suchmoon you started late, again, humiliation or something, one-word auditions, superiority, and the supporters are sending merit.

Don't worry, son, no one can take this place from you.

[hacker1001101001]

It is not a good reason to hamper someones ability to trade smoothly here, this is an open forum, discussed many times before and why is it that difficult for this type of users to use trust ratings to indicate scammer only? The rating I am talking about are on the people who have not scammed any funds, with no real victims. You know, it's even hard for some people around to accept apologise !

Hold your horses. Trust ratings can and should be used for a lot of stuff that isn't outright scamming, stop trying to define it how it suits you. If you want to go that route, just exclude Lauda and proceed on your merry way - you got your own trust system in your custom trust list.

I am defending it here without any personally indulge benifits.It is more targeted to the betterment of the use of red trust in an more organized and explanatory maner. Don't try to bend it towards me alone, there are many others who are facing such type of abuse and there is an list of examples I tried to avoid mentioning in the OP as I myself was an recent example.

But if you're talking about "ability to trade smoothly" then you're probably talking about DT and I doubt that even with scam-friendly weasels like TECSHARE in it we'll stoop down to the "do any shady shit just don't steal money" standard.

Shady shit in relation to trust ratings is limited to really scamming with funds or trying to scam with funds, rest of things are just opinions about if they would scam or not observed just from there views towards the system which is wrong, even that could be indicated with the use of a neutral rating. TECSHARE is nowhere near an harm to the DT network not even to the forum overall.

By no means was I trying to conflate the two, or suggest that the OP's behavior justified the negative review left by Lauda.  I completely disagree with this and a few other reviews recently left by Lauda, so I did what I feel is right; I exclude Lauda from my trust settings shortly after I read the OP of this thread.

Thank you for acting right, it's really not that difficult to judge an act right but only things that are avoiding people to do so boils down to 1. Hidden agendas. or 2. Fear. It would be dam effective even if the second group starts acting on it.

[wolwoo]

Thank you

let me do like suchmoon
shit, your welcome bro

[TECSHARE]

Please do cite specific examples.

LOL

Please do create your own thread about your amnesia issues. By no means ever try to provide specific examples of shit you're accusing others of because where's the fun in that, you sleazy hypocrite.

I don't just throw accusations around, I use specific references and keep public records of all of this abuse as you can see above. You however practice the Vod school of accusation. You project crimes on to people, then when asked to substantiate them you never seem to have an answer and just pretend it is obvious and slide the topic until everyone forgets you never actually substantiated anything.

[Lauda]

-snipped findings-

It will be convenient if even 1 of these users turns out to be the monster under the bed you claim as you "obviously and clearly" warn us with what you consider valid feedback

Almost all of them were monsters to some degree so far, but yes it will be very convenient because I would be very right (quite a very familiar situation, yet again).

Una mattina mi son svegliato
O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao ♪
Una mattina mi son svegliato ♪ ♪
Eo ho trovato ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ l'invasor ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

Removed the 'bogus rating', updated with a "law-abiding" one. Good luck with all the mud-slinging and side-fights. That's enough for this thread from me.

[hacker1001101001]

Removed the 'bogus rating', updated with a "law-abiding" one. Good luck with all the mud-slinging and side-fights. That's enough for this thread from me.

Your rating was just an example. You could round me up to anything scam realted which I am nowhere involved in and didn't even cause any financial damages to any real victims and use the trust system as you see fit. This thread was never about you alone anyways.

[dragonvslinux]

I'm very disappointed to be honest. I'm now more concerned that this erratic "change of heart opinion" will slow down the rate of distrust that's been building positive momentum over the past year. I had a lot more respect for this uncompromising & antagonistic nihilist, that openly doesn't care about the community or DT, as by consequence they were helping to bring awareness of "trust issues" within DT1 for the longer-term benefit. This was invaluable imo. It held more importance than removing an irrelevant negative trust (that already been countered, thus had become more or less worthless), but instead they threw this valuable case of DT accountability away, instead opting for self-accountability after the assurance this wouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for hacker1001101001 that his neg trust was removed, but disappointed for the community given the progress that was being made.

Sequence of events (for historical documentation purposes):

I will not even change it for OP [...] even if ordered by mr. thermos.

I would go up to flag ban them

I couldn't give a shit about neither community nor theymos guidelines

I will absolutely make no changes to these ratings.

[removes negative trust related to merit giving]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Lauda]

I had a lot more respect for this uncompromising & antagonistic nihilist, that openly doesn't care about the community or DT, as by consequence they were helping to bring awareness of "trust issues" within DT1 for the longer-term benefit.

You may be describing another Lauda, Laudas, cat, cats, user, users, entity, as the above is not characteristic of me.

Sequence of events (for historical documentation purposes):

I will not even change it for OP [...] even if ordered by mr. thermos.

I would go up to flag ban them

I couldn't give a shit about neither community nor theymos guidelines

I will absolutely make no changes to these ratings.

[removes negative trust related to merit giving]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A couple of you semi-shady folk are taking all of this very seriously, while I am just having my fun with y'all whilst doing good at the same time. That's the key difference. Many back-rooms of both sides (and yes, I am inside both "factions'" Slack channels and whatnot) do get their share of laughs from all of this. Every now and then I truly wonder how some users could possibly take all of this as seriously as they do, as if the forum and its systems of injustice law and policing right here are the crux of their whole life. Maybe they really are. Talk is cheap and for fun, just actions are what matters.

That's enough for this thread from me.

Here's to another undoing of my words. Almost scammed myself, too bad you can't rate for almost.

Una mattina mi son svegliato
O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao ♪
Una mattina mi son svegliato ♪ ♪
Eo ho trovato ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ l'invasor ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪