The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[TECSHARE]

I have no interest in responding to a post from the latest in a long line of alt accounts, riddled as it is with disingenuous nonsense and deliberately misleading claims to altruism.
Before I leave this toxic thread, I'll make clear that my posts and use of the forum systems are inline with the current guidelines laid down by the forum administrator.
My so called AIDS posts are meant to inform and hopefully educate, and any feedback I leave comes from the same motivation.
I don't align with any of these apparently rife? cliques which are endlessly referred to, and I have no financial incentive for posting or for the content of my posts.
I don't disagree that some abuse of forum systems exists. I disagree completely about unilateral solutions to it, especially when the main driver behind this proposed imposition is a hypocrite of the highest order.
The idea that the censorship you propose somehow supports and encourages "free speech" is beyond absurd.
You and anyone else can include or exclude me from their trust; I won't blatantly retaliate, then thrash about pulling varying justifications out of my ass, like your boss does.

[img ]http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/AbandonThread.gif[/img]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your posts aren't A.I.D.S., your subjective use of trust ratings are. Like the A.I.D.S. virus, trust police are like an over active immune system causing the body to attack its own healthy cells.

You don't align with any of these cliques, you just have most of them in your trust list and share most of the same inclusions right? Requiring evidence is not a "unilateral solution", it is a very simple basic standard, one that is required for any rational justice system.

Censorship? What the fuck are you even talking about? You know what fosters censorship? When people can just make up any excuse they like to use the trust system as a tool to punish people who say things they don't like, and they never have to prove anything.

You aren't thrashing about pulling various justifications out of your ass here? You could have fooled me.

[1715034451]

1715034451

[1715034451]

1715034451

[1715034451]

1715034451

[1715034451]

1715034451

[1715034451]

1715034451

[bones261]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your posts aren't A.I.D.S., your subjective use of trust ratings are. Like the A.I.D.S. virus, trust police are like an over active immune system causing the body to attack its own healthy cells.

You don't align with any of these cliques, you just have most of them in your trust list and share most of the same inclusions right? Requiring evidence is not a "unilateral solution", it is a very simple basic standard, one that is required for any rational justice system.

Censorship? What the fuck are you even talking about? You know what fosters censorship? When people can just make up any excuse they like to use the trust system as a tool to punish people who say things they don't like, and they never have to prove anything.

You aren't thrashing about pulling various justifications out of your ass here? You could have fooled me.

Just FYI, A.I.D.S does not cause your immune system to go into overdrive. It is the exact opposite. You may want to consult the Wikipedia page listing autoimmune diseases to find a disease that better fits your analogy. There are multitudes of them.
For example, I think Rheumatoid arthritis probably better fits your above analogy.

[TECSHARE]

Just FYI, A.I.D.S does not cause your immune system to go into overdrive. It is the exact opposite. You may want to consult the Wikipedia page listing autoimmune diseases to find a disease that better fits your analogy. There are multitudes of them.
For example, I think Rheumatoid arthritis probably better fits your above analogy.

Noted. Thanks for more pointless topic sliding about usless side issues intended to cause maximum distraction from the actual content of the OP.

[bones261]

Just FYI, A.I.D.S does not cause your immune system to go into overdrive. It is the exact opposite. You may want to consult the Wikipedia page listing autoimmune diseases to find a disease that better fits your analogy. There are multitudes of them.
For example, I think Rheumatoid arthritis probably better fits your above analogy.

Noted. Thanks for more pointless topic sliding about usless side issues intended to cause maximum distraction from the actual content of the OP.

Well, it was you that put AIDS in the mix. Quite frankly I think it has done absolutely zero to help bolster your case. I much prefer the clown analogies. At least that analogy is good for a chuckle while still being rather insulting to your adversaries. Plus it has the bonus effect of  plaguing your adversaries with annoying earworms. 

[TECSHARE]

Well, it was you that put AIDS in the mix. Quite frankly I think it has done absolutely zero to help bolster your case. I much prefer the clown analogies. At least that analogy is good for a chuckle while still being rather insulting to your adversaries. Plus it has the bonus effect of  plaguing your adversaries with annoying earworms. 

Thank you for the open admission of your adversarial stance.

[JollyGood]

Why am I not surprised to see your name not on the suggested exclusions list? Was it not added purely because you are biased as you are the author of the thread and suggested lists?

I also did not see the names of those that merited the opening post on the thread.

Nor did I see the names of the local language board users that cheated their way to DT1 but thankfully kicked off it after DT users took action last month.

Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

qwk
monkeynuts
Ticked
figmentofmyass
BayAreaCoins
Lesbian Cow
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
bill gator
LoyceV
eddie13
hacker1001101001
DdmrDdmr
iCEBREAKER


SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~smoothie
~BitcoinEXpress
~Vod
~Foxpup
~ibminer
~TMAN
~Lauda
~Timelord2067
~TheNewAnon135246
~mindrust
~cryptodevil
~suchmoon
~owlcatz
~nutildah
~tmfp
~yahoo62278
~Last of the V8s
~Lutpin
~TwitchySeal
~bob123
~marlboroza
~blurryeyed
~nullius
~JollyGood
~mosprognoz
~DireWolfM14

[TECSHARE]

Why am I not surprised to see your name on the suggested exclusions list? Was it not added purely because you are biased as you are the author of the thread and suggested lists?

I also did not see the names of those that merited the opening post on the thread.

Nor did I see the names of the local language board users that cheated their way to DT1 but thankfully kicked off it after DT users took action last month.

Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?

Speak English much? I assume you mean your name on the list. Your name is on the list because you regularly leave negative ratings based on suspicion alone, as well as things like advertising a banner for organizations you suspect, I.E. guilt via association. What is your point exactly other than the fact that you object?

[nutildah]

Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?

The primary criteria for being on the TECSHARE shitlist is that they have TS excluded, mutual exclusions are bolded:

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~smoothie
~BitcoinEXpress
~Vod
~Foxpup
~ibminer
~TMAN
~Lauda
~Timelord2067
~TheNewAnon135246
~mindrust
~cryptodevil
~suchmoon
~owlcatz
~nutildah
~tmfp
~yahoo62278
~Last of the V8s
~Lutpin
~TwitchySeal
~bob123
~marlboroza
~blurryeyed
~nullius
~JollyGood
~mosprognoz
~DireWolfM14

If you exclude TS, you have bad judgment, and therefore can't have objective standards.

[TECSHARE]

Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?

The primary criteria for being on the TECSHARE shitlist is that they have TS excluded, mutual exclusions are bolded:
...

Funny you mention that considering I excluded JollyGood, then he replied with his own exclusion. Of course it is only retaliatory when I do it right?

[truth or dare]

Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?

The primary criteria for being on the TECSHARE shitlist is that they have TS excluded, mutual exclusions are bolded:

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~smoothie
~BitcoinEXpress
~Vod
~Foxpup
~ibminer
~TMAN
~Lauda
~Timelord2067
~TheNewAnon135246
~mindrust
~cryptodevil
~suchmoon
~owlcatz
~nutildah
~tmfp
~yahoo62278
~Last of the V8s
~Lutpin
~TwitchySeal
~bob123
~marlboroza
~blurryeyed
~nullius
~JollyGood
~mosprognoz
~DireWolfM14

If you exclude TS, you have bad judgment, and therefore can't have objective standards.

That is speculation and likely very misleading. Not to mention irrelevant. If any excluded stated they would abide by the objective standards the guild is being founded upon, then TS would likely move them to the includes list of they are serious.

Please be constructive, and not allow prior personal disputes to fuel this speculative, misleading and irrelevant nonsense to clutter the guilds important thread.

[JollyGood]

I actually used to pity you some times, feel sorry for you other times and laugh out loud when reading some of your nonsensical tripe other times. In some circumstances I occasionally gave you partial benefit of the doubt but no more.

You seem to thrive on the need for public attention. You are deluded, your bloated exaggerated belief in your self-importance is laughable as much as it is worthy of pity. Your delusion seems to be growing at an alarming rate thanks to the merits being thrown your way by the local language board conspirators trying to get back to DT who have been on the look out for a fool to come along who will play good doggy fetch with them. Good to see you and they are trusting, distrusting and meriting the same way - hence your misguided belief in your bloated self-importance is exacerbated thanks to their contributions to your mental unbalance

I cannot provide a professional opinion since it is not my forté nor my field but you should seriously get booked in to see a medical expert that specialises in treating those suffering from delusions of grandeur and those suffering from the most acutest of narcissistic tendencies. After they identify the exact cause and extent of your medical condition they might be able to treat and save you from slipping further in your own tiny little bubble world.

Hopefully if you get medical treatment in time you might be able to have a normal life in the real world instead of the rather ridiculous one you are living online here.

Speak English much? I assume you mean your name on the list. Your name is on the list because you regularly leave negative ratings based on suspicion alone, as well as things like advertising a banner for organizations you suspect, I.E. guilt via association. What is your point exactly other than the fact that you object?

[truth or dare]

I actually used to pity you some times, feel sorry for you other times and laugh out loud when reading some of your nonsensical tripe other times. In some circumstances I occasionally gave you partial benefit of the doubt but no more.

You seem to thrive on the need for public attention. You are deluded, your bloated exaggerated belief in your self-importance is laughable as much as it is worthy of pity. It seems to be growing at an alarming rate thanks to the merits being thrown your way by the local language board conspirators trying to get back to DT and have been on the look out for a fool to come along who will play good doggy fetch with them. Good to see you and they are trusting, distrusting and meriting the same way - hence your bloated and misguided belief in your bloated self-importance is exacerbated thanks to their contributions to your mental unbalance

I cannot provide a professional opinion since it is not my forté nor my field but you should seriously get booked in to see a medical expert that specialises in treating those suffering from delusions of grandeur and those suffering from the most acutest of narcissistic tendencies. After they identify the exact cause and extent of your medical condition they might be able to treat and save you from slipping further in your own tiny little bubble world.

Hopefully if you get medical treatment in time you might be able to have a normal life in the real world instead of the rather ridiculous one you are living online here.

Speak English much? I assume you mean your name on the list. Your name is on the list because you regularly leave negative ratings based on suspicion alone, as well as things like advertising a banner for organizations you suspect, I.E. guilt via association. What is your point exactly other than the fact that you object?

Relax. Don't become emotional. Just accept transparent objective standards are undeniably optimal and ask to join the guild nicely whilst stating you will behave in accordance with those standards. This continual misdiagnosis of other members mental well-being is getting silly. Let's debate the core points not detail a great thread.

So you want to join the guild Or not?

[suchmoon]

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

truth or dare
The-One-Above-All
cryptohunter

[truth or dare]

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

truth or dare
The-One-Above-All
cryptohunter

Those are sensible suggestions thank you, and I'm pretty sure those are all accounts that would certainly support transparent objective standards that ensured the fair and equal treatment of all members.

Something suchmoon and direwolf don't seem to want to support.

That's a shame but very revealing.

[TECSHARE]

I actually used to pity you some times, feel sorry for you other times and laugh out loud when reading some of your nonsensical tripe other times. In some circumstances I occasionally gave you partial benefit of the doubt but no more.

You seem to thrive on the need for public attention. You are deluded, your bloated exaggerated belief in your self-importance is laughable as much as it is worthy of pity. Your delusion seems to be growing at an alarming rate thanks to the merits being thrown your way by the local language board conspirators trying to get back to DT who have been on the look out for a fool to come along who will play good doggy fetch with them. Good to see you and they are trusting, distrusting and meriting the same way - hence your misguided belief in your bloated self-importance is exacerbated thanks to their contributions to your mental unbalance

I cannot provide a professional opinion since it is not my forté nor my field but you should seriously get booked in to see a medical expert that specialises in treating those suffering from delusions of grandeur and those suffering from the most acutest of narcissistic tendencies. After they identify the exact cause and extent of your medical condition they might be able to treat and save you from slipping further in your own tiny little bubble world.

Hopefully if you get medical treatment in time you might be able to have a normal life in the real world instead of the rather ridiculous one you are living online here.

Speak English much? I assume you mean your name on the list. Your name is on the list because you regularly leave negative ratings based on suspicion alone, as well as things like advertising a banner for organizations you suspect, I.E. guilt via association. What is your point exactly other than the fact that you object?

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed? There seems to be a repeating theme of people who get called out attacking my person rather than addressing any of the issues. Could it be they have no argument to stand on, therefore personal attacks are the only remaining option?

...This is why I have been advocating so vocally for "rule of law", IE a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, before rating, because rule of law is what protects the rights of the individual. For example the USA is a republic, because it preserves the right of the individual within a Democracy. In a pure democracy, all you have is pure mob "justice", and it is a popularity contest not a matter of fact. What this forum is, is mob justice with no protection for the individual. The mob simply votes the individuals rights away. I really don't think this is what Theymos intended even if it is what resulted...

...this forum seems more interested in who is popular and protecting their own ass than the actual viability of the forums systems. After all, if people are only punished by rules, and not protected by them, historically what happens to those systems of governments? They fail. Horribly and spectacularly.

[figmentofmyass]

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

[TECSHARE]

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

Another good user falls victim to harassment and abuse for doing nothing more than speaking their mind. I understand your reasoning, but you didn't ask to be put on that list, and it is nothing more than a suggestion for inclusion on my part. I don't know how I feel about censoring my opinion about you being a reputable inclusion based on what is clearly a decision taken under duress.

I must say I am initially inclined to grant this request, but I am conflicted on the matter by what is essentially censorship by proxy. I don't see how anyone can make proper trust lists if anyone even making suggestions can be harassed into staying silent about them. You should also know, no matter what you do at this point they are never going to stop. That is just what they do. Submission is not a solution to your issues.

[truth or dare]

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

The lists should be based upon a person's willingness and actions to operate with the objective standards that are clearly optimal for the whole forum. There is no requirement for stress and bickering.

Unless people have been harassing you via PM and threatening you ?

Being " right on the internet" is not what the guild stands for.

There is no bickering here. There has not been 1 single member that has presented any kind of credible argument to retain the subjective and dangerous tagging system. There is only attempted derailing and personal attacks.

If anyone says they are willing to operate and abide by transparent objective standards for creating warnings by default they are exactly the members the guild should be including.

There is really no need to participate outside of that.

If you have been threatened or intimidated ( may be you have not) then you should make that known.

The lists should not be a request to include or exclude, The guild membership should simply be : I will act and behave responsibly adhering to transparent objective standards that ensure freedom of speech is not crushed and that all members are treated equally. Or no I refuse to operate in that way.

That is essentially all that should be evaluated.

I mean if you are now saying that you prefer the subjective as abused red tagging system remains in its current form then yes I think you should be removed.

I don't think people should just say include me or leave me off the lists. They simply say they support objective standards and then their actions are observed to render them eligible or ineligible. Even those that fear open support of the guild will bring them unwanted troubles can be added based on their actions not their desires to specifically join the guild.

The stress, bickering, hounding, threats, trust abuse, merit starvation, ignoring, character assasination and screaming for your ban are sadly the price they are hoping all but a handful are unwilling to pay.

This is why they have been successful for so long.

Actions not requests and promises will be the determining factor, I'm sure the lists will be dynamic anyway. 3

[JollyGood]

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed?

Exclusion exposed? What exactly are you taking credit for? What did you expose?

You already have added me to your distrust list and likewise I have you on my distrust list. There is nothing retaliatory about it. In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list. The fact is I saw your trash posting several times over several days beforehand but in the middle of that line of trash posting were the occasional post that was far sensible and relevant than you deserved credit for so was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately your conduct left me with no choice so I added you to my distrust list.

In that thread you allude to (where you became emotionally unstable because I added you to my distrust list) nobody cared about the trash you were spouting then and nobody is interested in this guild trash either.

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed? There seems to be a repeating theme of people who get called out attacking my person rather than addressing any of the issues. Could it be they have no argument to stand on, therefore personal attacks are the only remaining option?

There is nothing to address. There are no issues to address here. You have created a thread in the hope to revel in a fake sense of self-importance. Nobody cares about this guild trash you are trying to cook up except your friends from the local language board and a few others that post for the sake of it or to feel the need to stay relevant.

You know full and well that theymos will not be giving you the time of day regarding this thread which was created for your own self-indulgence and maybe if it was a set of guidelines from a user (or set of users) considered trustworthy and likeable by general consensus then users would have flocked to co-operate.





So this image shows the real reason you created all this pathetic little drama?

Nobody cares about your ridiculously overinflated sense of self-importance or your equally pathetic ego. You might find a few members of the local language board and a couple of wannabe that have a grudge against most DTs because they were tagged after their little games were exposed therefore they follow you around but they are almost mentally twisted as you, they will dump you the moment they feel they no longer have any use for you.

You still have time, kindly seek medical advice before your case is too far gone for medical experts to help address your narcissistic over-exuberance and fix your mental imbalance issues. Thank you.

[DooMAD]

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

Another good user falls victim to harassment and abuse for doing nothing more than speaking their mind.

I mean... that's certainly one interpretation.  Another could be that users simply don't want to take your recommendations on who they should or shouldn't trust.  If you had simply left it at the part where you said anyone could opt in as long as they follow the tenets and stopped there, perhaps people may have been more receptive to the idea.  Each member could then form their own conclusions on who is and isn't following the guidelines and adjust their trust list accordingly.
 
But you had to go and "suggest" people exclude the users you don't personally trust.  Then you act surprised or indignant when people infer that it looks like you're trying to reshape the trust system in a way that just so happens to cut out all the people you don't like.  

I did ask:

How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?  

And don't recall seeing it answered in your subsequent replies.  So I can only conclude you don't actually want those particular users to be more objective, you just want to reduce the impact of their tags by encouraging other users to distrust them.  I suppose you'll reply with more yet more indignation and claim that I'm being disingenuous for pointing out that funny little coincidence, but that's honestly how it looks.