The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[suchmoon]

and who the fuck cares about this?

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

[1715056217]

1715056217

[1715056217]

1715056217

[1715056217]

1715056217

[1715056217]

1715056217

[1715056217]

1715056217

[marlboroza]

and who the fuck cares about this?

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

This topic is so damn confusing. For example:



All these users tagged account hashman, here is reference link for tags: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190670#post_hashman (account is in in tecshare's trust network btw)

I don't see them in topic so it is either:

1) they have good evidence of theft, contract violation and/or violation of applicable laws and tecshare included potentially hacked account to his trust network (according to tecshare's standards)
2) they are abusing trust and they should be in list number 2 (according to tecshare's standards)

Which one is it? 

[truth or dare]

and who the fuck cares about this?

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

This topic is so damn confusing. For example:



All these users tagged account hashman, here is reference link for tags: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190670#post_hashman (account is in in tecshare's trust network btw)

I don't see them in topic so it is either:

1) they have good evidence of theft, contract violation and/or violation of applicable laws and tecshare included potentially hacked account to his trust network (according to tecshare's standards)
2) they are abusing trust and they should be in list number 2 (according to tecshare's standards)

Which one is it? 

This should be a separate discussion.

Moving to objective accurate flagging system.

Optional trust list exclusions / inclusions.

The latter far less crucial under greatly reduced subjectivity and far more complex to gain absolute consensus.

Currently if you have accurate personal tagging history but are enabling and supporting the inclusion of members that have masses of frivolous tags or tags not directly related to scamming, attempted scamming or setting up a scam then that could be the reasoning behind their optional exclusions.

Since this is optional and of a way lower importance to moving to a transparent and objective system then it seems strange to try to discredit the move on largely irrelevant bickering and speculation.

Regardless of the suitability or perceived suitability of the optional lists. I would like to hear each member address the move to a transparent and objective flagging system. Some members seem to be avoiding tackling or debating the core and most important point.  Preferring to perhaps discredit the as yet entirely robust and net positive move to the flags entirely.

If you are unable to present a supporting argument that stands up to scrutiny for retaining the subjective tagging system, then you should support the move to flagging entirely. If you will not then at the very least you should not attempt to prevent it.

Marlboroza do you wish to present an argument to retain the subjective tagging system? or is your objection here to the optional lists and who is on them? these are not the same thing.

[TECSHARE]

and who the fuck cares about this?

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

This topic is so damn confusing. For example:



All these users tagged account hashman, here is reference link for tags: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190670#post_hashman (account is in in tecshare's trust network btw)

I don't see them in topic so it is either:

1) they have good evidence of theft, contract violation and/or violation of applicable laws and tecshare included potentially hacked account to his trust network (according to tecshare's standards)
2) they are abusing trust and they should be in list number 2 (according to tecshare's standards)

Which one is it? 

So now you are so desperate to find ways to attack me, you need to resort to guilt via tertiary association now? None of those people are in my inclusions. You don't give a fuck about this community, you only care to preserve the ability to play your chimp like shit slinging games. You are intentionally ignoring not only the actual wording of the op, but its intent in order to maintain the status quo you and your friends benefit from. Your intellectual dishonesty and obsession with impugning my character is quite transparent.

[marlboroza]

This should be a separate discussion.

Are you trying to say that everything what is posted in topic should be in different topic? I am following topic and giving suggestions to TECSHARE! He said "feel free to suggest...", he didn't say "you are not allowed to look in my trust network..." and, followed by his standards, I am suggesting him to not cherrypick accounts if he has so strong opinion about whole thing. My posts are pretty much on topic, question to something which is in topic is still on topic reply! Look, he said:

Lets work together

I am giving my best to work together with TECSHARE and trying to find reasonable solution for these 4 observable instances  

~

Why are you spamming? Which one is it? It is pretty much 1 or 2! Which one?

Why you don't want to work on this?
As I now have your attention, can you please:

BayAreaCoins
HostFat
bill gator

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53879760#msg53879760

Thank you!

[Vod]

Why are you spamming? So which one is it? It is pretty much 1 or 2.

Good Luck!

He can't win arguments so he makes sure he can't lose them either by not finishing them.  :/

How many dozens have times have I won an argument only to have him deflect like he is now, that sick fuck. 

[marlboroza]

Why are you spamming? So which one is it? It is pretty much 1 or 2.

Good Luck!

He can't win arguments so he makes sure he can't lose them either by not finishing them.  :/

How many dozens have times have I won an argument only to have him deflect like he is now, that sick fuck.  

It is like talking to a brick wall.

In one thread he holds users directly accountable:

   qwk
    LoyceV

I hold all of you directly accountable for his actions.

Then he starts another thread and doesn't hold the same users accountable:

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

qwk
LoyceV

Are they suggested inclusions or accountable(not suggested inclusions) then  

He invites me to this thread:

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~marlboroza

Then he doesn't want me to post here:

So now you are so desperate to find ways to attack me

He doesn't even know what is his own topic about:

None of those people are in my inclusions.

Fucking prick, he said to suggest inclusions/exclusions (based on his standards):

Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.

Then he attacks me for my suggestions (which are based on his standards).

[TECSHARE]

[truth or dare]

Why are you spamming? So which one is it? It is pretty much 1 or 2.

Good Luck!

He can't win arguments so he makes sure he can't lose them either by not finishing them.  :/

How many dozens have times have I won an argument only to have him deflect like he is now, that sick fuck.  

It is like talking to a brick wall.

In one thread he holds users directly accountable:

   qwk
    LoyceV

I hold all of you directly accountable for his actions.

Then he starts another thread and doesn't hold the same users accountable:

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

qwk
LoyceV

Are they suggested inclusions or accountable(not suggested inclusions) then  

He invites me to this thread:

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~marlboroza

Then he doesn't want me to post here:

So now you are so desperate to find ways to attack me

He doesn't even know what is his own topic about:

None of those people are in my inclusions.

Fucking prick, he said to suggest inclusions/exclusions (based on his standards):

Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.

Then he attacks me for my suggestions (which are based on his standards).

Yes, it is on topic, although not comprehensively. However, since those are only suggested or optional lists, then lack of complete consensus on those lists does not destroy, or really have much impact if any on the merit of moving to the objective flagging system.

 So to focus entirely on a possible conflict of subjective options with regard to the 100 % optimal candidates for those lists, rather than voicing support for the core and most important point, can produce a negative vibe on what should be a positive and cohesive union.

You would support surely this move ? after accepting it would both solve that long list of damaging insoluble problems, and produce far more credible and accurate warnings for members. It is a clear win win situation.

Guaranteeing a persons lists were 100% optimal to ensuring the protection, safety and fair treatment of the entire forum regardless of personality type, and other variables that could be a factor, is impossible. It becomes far less important, when the System design,  removes subjectivity, and that system can only be used in a responsible, accurate, and useful manner. You design systems that can not be abused that produce consistency and value.

Consensus on the move to the transparent objective flagging system should be easy to achieve since there is an overwhelmingly strong and robust argument to support that.

Consensus on the optional lists is likely impossible for many reasons. It is not required or essential.

Therefore to focus on the latter is net negative and counterproductive in the full context of what could be achieved here.

 I would suggest TS placing a passage of text saying these are my optional and entirely personal lists for your consideration. Do your own research to determine if you consider them useful guides.  There may be many different factors that my extensive research has unearthed for each member on the list which can be discussed in detail on another thread  and these are dynamic and constantly changing. These lists do not require your complete agreement you should include those you determine are best suited. The move to a transparent objective flagging system will ensure all warnings are left in a responsible, independently verifiable, consistent manner that are accurate and useful regardless. of the member raising the warning and those supporting the warning.

That is just my suggestion, TS is free to do as he wishes of course. I am supporting this movement regardless,  due to firmly agreeing with a move to transparent objective standards.

[Vod]

It is like talking to a brick wall.

Well, since the only thing thing bozo could do was post his graduation after party pic, looks like you actually won (even though he will deny it).

Congrats - you proved Techy is a hypocrite.  

[nutildah]

You had me until here.

I don't care to make this about me when it's so obviously all about you.

LOL.

What the hell is this?

Techy is hypocritical, like Greta.

Oh, now that Vod is here, we have everybody I think TS has named as being part of the Clown Car. However, the definition is still open to including every DT member that potentially pisses off TS at some point.

This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...

Guns have legitimate uses
Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes

Trust Ratings have legitimate uses
Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes

From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.

Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective.

This is a very rational assessment. However, the different of opinion many of us have is when it comes to defining what "misuse" of trust means. Some times its quite clear cut; other times its not. I don't care for the whole randomness factor (the "Theymos Snap" as I call it) that determines who is an entrant into DT1 each month, but other than that, I think the system of "checks and balances" works decently well and is not likely to get much better than it currently is.

Now of course TS and perhaps others are going to say that I like it as is because it "favors" me, but I'd like to think it only does so because my use of the system remains within the general bounds of what is considered to be acceptable.

The whole point of the system remaining open and flexible in its current state is to allow the DT community (which is frequently evolving) as a whole to decide what acceptable use of the trust system is. Of course, not everybody is going to agree on everything, and there will always exist minority and majority opinions, as should be the case.

I tend to go by what is listed here, which is an outline developed around previously-held discussions, and then modified after ongoing discussions in that thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

I am absolutely against setting rigid standards because then we are reliant on a single entity to set and enforce said standards, which is something theymos has been trying to get away from for quite some time.

[truth or dare]

You had me until here.

I don't care to make this about me when it's so obviously all about you.

LOL.

What the hell is this?

Techy is hypocritical, like Greta.

Oh, now that Vod is here, we have everybody I think TS has named as being part of the Clown Car. However, the definition is still open to including every DT member that potentially pisses off TS at some point.

This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...

Guns have legitimate uses
Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes

Trust Ratings have legitimate uses
Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes

From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.

Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective.

This is a very rational assessment. However, the different of opinion we have is when it comes to defining what "misuse" of trust means. Some times its quite clear cut; other times its not. I don't care for the whole randomness factor (the "Theymos Snap" as I call it) that determines who is an entrant into DT1 each month, but other than that, I think the system of "checks and balances" works decently well and is likely not going to get much better than it currently is.

Now of course TS and perhaps others are going to say that I like it as is because it "favors" me, but I'd like to think it only does so because my use of the system remains within the general bounds of what is considered to be acceptable.

The whole point of the system remaining open and flexible in its current state is to allow the DT community (which is frequently evolving) as a whole to decide what acceptable use of the trust system is. Of course, not everybody is going to agree on everything, and there will always exist minority and majority opinions, as should be the case.

I tend to go by what is listed here, which is an outline developed around previously-held discussions, and then modified after ongoing discussions in that thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

I am absolutely against setting rigid standards because then we are reliant on a single entity to set and enforce said standards, which is something theymos has been trying to get away from for quite some time.

That is not actually true, and the statement is not supported by any argument that would stand up to scrutiny.

The would still be no reliance upon a single entity. It is quite within the capabilities of most members here to correctly differentiate between behaviors that are a direct financial danger either scamming, attempting to scam or setting up a scam and those others like drinking lemonade, and having different opinions to other people, calling people a twat, etc.

I think claiming we will need theymos to tell us every time a lemonade drinker, a person with unpopular opionions, or any other behavior that is totally unrelated to trading, money, direct financial matters of any kind ia not a direct financial danger is incorrect.  

Also what theymos is aiming for or attempting, should not be conflated with that which is proven best or optimal for the forum. So the theymos said, theymos wants, theymos hinted are not immediately to be accepted as the final and best answers or solutions. I'm sure he would agree. One person can not be expected to come up with the optimal solution to all problems. We are decentralizing the problem solving process here or perhaps distributing the process.

Also a single entity Making the decision alone that future decisions with in his system He designed alone are optimally formed in a decentralized manner Is full of problems for those trying to leverage that as some totally decentralized and credible final argument of absolute guarantee of must-be-right-right.

[Lauda]

Is there an application process for this Guild? I want to apply.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?

No. You've made a claim that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers causes significant negative effects, such as allowing major scammers to be lost in "signal noise". I've asked repeatedly for evidence of that claim, which you are refusing to provide. You can't just make unsubstantiated claims with no proof and then place the onus on other people to debunk them. Isn't that the entire point of your opening post in this thread?

It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I have a lower score on my own trust list than I do on default trust.

It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued.

I don't disagree with that, and let me restate again that "frivolous tags given for personal retribution" as you put it have no place in the trust system. What I do disagree with is TECSHARE's suggestion and that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers results in more negatives than positives.

[figmentofmyass]

indeed, i used "established" as a verb and then you mischaracterized it to mean an "established fact".

still a mischaracterization: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish

and who the fuck cares about this? you've yet to address why you are continuing to distract from the discussion with this completely unimportant tangent.

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions? i think that's fairly self-evident and not worth arguing over, but we can agree to disagree. it's an opinion, and i don't mind being associated with it.

i don't think that implies that i'm "reckless with facts" but it's cute how you're now piling on ad hominems so you can continue distracting from the actual topic.

as a reminder, the issue is whether claims related to negative trust feedback are substantiated. the issue is not whether "every opinion figmentofmyass expresses" is substantiated.

should i pick apart every sentence you utter, asking you to "substantiate" everything you say? this is the height of false equivalence! i'm asking for people to substantiate their claims regarding negative trust, not meet ridiculous standards for every opinion they express when writing a post on bitcointalk.

if you had anything useful to say, you would address the topic---whether there should be objective standards regarding the trust system, whether DT negative trust should require any standards whatsoever, etc---rather than distracting with ridiculous off-topic tangents, fallacies, and ad hominem attacks.

I would suggest TS placing a passage of text saying these are my optional and entirely personal lists for your consideration. Do your own research to determine if you consider them useful guides.

+1.

[LoyceV]

Also you don't need to use your tagging activities as a form of ego masturbation because you are not emotionally a sad child that needs to get their self value from lording over others.

Correct I have Merit for that
Theymos is really my kryptonite.

It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust.

I made a topic for that a long time ago: Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most?.

[truth or dare]

Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?

No. You've made a claim that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers causes significant negative effects, such as allowing major scammers to be lost in "signal noise". I've asked repeatedly for evidence of that claim, which you are refusing to provide. You can't just make unsubstantiated claims with no proof and then place the onus on other people to debunk them. Isn't that the entire point of your opening post in this thread?

It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I have a lower score on my own trust list than I do on default trust.

It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued.

I don't disagree with that, and let me restate again that "frivolous tags given for personal retribution" as you put it have no place in the trust system. What I do disagree with is TECSHARE's suggestion and that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers results in more negatives than positives.

With obvious scammers or those undeniably placing people at great direct financial risk then maybe yes. Perhaps some examples and details could bring you both closer together. For example is an objective and solid warning this member is requesting information that renders members financially vulnerable and open to scamming leaving much room for subjectivity. So long as there is a credible and direct financial threat that can be independently verfied, then there is nothing wrong with a statement or warning saying that. That is reducing the subjectivity and frivolous ratings to strike a nice balance between mitigating those insoluble problems and increasing the reliability, accuracy and credibility of pre-emptive warnings.

His point I suspect is that those insoluble problems I mentioned that are very damaging to the forum are more net negative for the forum as a whole than the positives of pre emotive flagging. I expect that he is factoring in that some innocent people will be flagged at some point.
However, I think if people are even innocently placing members at great financial risk by requiring priv keys or as you say are conducting  real, credible , directly financially dangerous behaviors then it would be sensible to provide a warning if the system can permit that without creating those insoluble problems.  I mean if I was latter was shown to be a genuine mistake or lack of knowledge people can withdraw the support for the flag.

Those insoluble problems are very serious though, and if you think about each one carefully they do enable scamming at perhaps a more serious and less obvious level. Also scamming from higher levels does have more leverage.

The insoluble problems, all the infighting can be largely mitigated and I think pre-emptive warnings  can certainly remain in a less dangerous, more reliable? and more accurate way.

Perhaps just some sensible consideration and willingness to consider each other's arguments would bring an optimal solution for everyone.

I personally will always view free speech as the most valuable thing that requires protection here. I do think everyone should be reasonably responsible for their own financial security online. However, both can be reasonably accommodated within a sensible design. It would be optimal until a better design that stood up to scrutiny was proposed.

[suchmoon]

I made a topic for that a long time ago: Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most?.

What TECSHARE is proposing in the OP is quite different from his own trust list. And he's not in your thread for obvious reasons so no viable comparison can be made.

which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions? i think that's fairly self-evident and not worth arguing over, but we can agree to disagree. it's an opinion, and i don't mind being associated with it.

Your post where you tried to backpedal from your "millions of board members" claim was predicated on that but then you declared that discussing it is a tangent. Ok, fine. I've been advocating custom trust lists for years as have many other users. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory for that.

You might want to review your own trust list to make sure it meets your standards. For example you're including someone who posts ratings like these:

I believe this user to be mentally ill. He considers this slander, I consider it to be the truth. I have never made any threats against hippie tech. He claims I am working with "Cryptsy insider chums" but I have been openly critical of Cryptsy as well as pump and dump groups. This user is just seeking attention and is attacking me because I manage Infinitecoin, a coin which is overshadowing his own altcoin. Instead of presenting facts to support his argument he would rather just abuse the trust system to have petty squabbles. I am willing to remove this if you remove your abusive negative rating.

You need to get over yourself and focus on your own affairs. You harassed me, you got burned. End of story. There was no abuse except for your harassment and feigning of victimhood.

Note: see negative trust he left for me 4 months after the fact for something he was not even involved in, as well as the positive ratings he left for anyone who argued in his favor. Clearly obsessive behavior and he refuses to let this incident go. This user is manipulative, a liar, and untrustworthy. He will cry at the top of his lungs about being a victim while he perpetrates abuses upon others in the same breath. FYI, Pedantic vocabulary doesn't cover up your bullshit.

That's not very "standard", is it?

[LoyceMobile]

What TECSHARE is proposing in the OP is quite different from his own trust list. And he's not in your thread for obvious reasons so no viable comparison can be made.

See the full list: http://loyce.club/trust/selfscratchers/
(Note: this is older data)

[bones261]

Is there an application process for this Guild? I want to apply.

Step 1: Remove your negative trust comment for Tecshare.
Step 2: Include rather than exclude Tecshare from your trust list.
Step 3: Read the OP and adjust your trust list to include everyone part of the guild and exclude all clown car members.
Step 4: Leave positive trust comment for Tecshare

It's that easy. However, is it possible to exclude yourself from your own trust list? That might be tricky.