The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[TECSHARE]

Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

It is well known that this forum is divided up into several cliques. Unfortunately this is a direct result of a tendency towards mob rule, and a system of might makes right that strips the individual of the ability to use this forum in peace free from harassment, threats, and intimidation. The forum trust system has become an unmitigated disaster, a textbook example of the failure of pure democracy, also known as mob rule.

The failure of the management of these forum systems have allowed for the worst types of personalities to maintain an iron grip over the control of these systems, and entrench a culture of nepotism, retaliation, and constant infighting which is antithetical to the user base being able to exercise their free use of the forum, free speech, and free trade that it offers.

The members of this mob rely on maintaining arbitrary unwritten rules in order to maintain a system of selective enforcement that enables them to stifle criticism, competition, and functions as a gate keeping mechanism under which none shall pass until the knee is bent and tribute is paid. The status quo is antithetical to everything Bitcoin was built to resist, and stands the original culture of this community on its head, making a total mockery of it. These reasons are why, today I introduce to you, The Objective Standards Guild.


Core tenets:

1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.

2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
 
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.

4. Users who follow these standards should be included in trust lists.

5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible.


There is no inherent hierarchy. Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. Using the avatar below and linking to this thread in your signature is encouraged. Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systemic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.


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

EDIT YOUR TRUST LIST HERE

BRING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BACK TO BITCOINTALK - TESTIMONIUM LIBERTATUM IUSTITIA

EDIT:

one of the primary purposes of this thread (IMO) is to say that the rest of the forum can have a vote too: you only need 10 earned merits and then you can participate and affect the default trust system by "voting" for objective/fair members and against biased/unfair members.

even people who have been wronged by DT trust abuse can help to remove their abusers from DT. one of the crucial elements is that you must include members as well since a member's trust list must include 10+ users before they can be on DT1.

so people need to do more than just exclude abusers and hope DT1 members do the same---they need to build bigger trust networks (with inclusions) so they can actually affect the DT1 lottery or be voted in themselves.

this is a numbers game. if everyone keeps refusing to customize their trust list, then nothing will change. the same people will keep voting themselves onto DT1 and perpetuating the current system.

Vires In Numeris.

i also appreciate that TECSHARE has provided some reasonable cover for people who want to include/exclude people in the OP. on this forum, some DT members have been known to use their position to publicly/privately pressure other members into changing their trust lists. this culture of intimidation (combined with fear of DT retaliation) stifles honest usage of the trust system.

perhaps OSG could allow us to create somewhat of a "united front", which DT abusers tend to enjoy, but which the abused never have the privilege of.

[1714138331]

1714138331

[1714138331]

1714138331

[LoyceV]

a textbook example of the failure of pure democracy

In a pure democracy, I expect each adult to have one vote. On the forum, voting power depends on earned Merits, so it can't be a pure democracy.

Allow me to add some links to your lists:

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

     1. Legendary iCEBREAKER (Trust: +6 / =0 / -2) (70 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Donator qwk (Trust: +16 / =1 / -0) (1434 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary monkeynuts (Trust: +31 / =1 / -0) (258 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Sr. Member Ticked (Trust: +26 / =0 / -0) (207 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary figmentofmyass (Trust: neutral) (607 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary BayAreaCoins (Trust: +13 / =0 / -0) (79 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary Lesbian Cow (Trust: +43 / =0 / -0) (567 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary Rmcdermott927 (Trust: +22 / =1 / -0) (51 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Hero Member teeGUMES (Trust: +11 / =3 / -1) (487 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary bill gator (Trust: +18 / =3 / -9) (542 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Legendary LoyceV (Trust: +26 / =2 / -0) (4759 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Legendary eddie13 (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (925 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Sr. Member hacker1001101001 (Trust: +6 / =1 / -3) (251 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Hero Member DdmrDdmr (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (3312 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

     1. Legendary smoothie (Trust: +24 / =1 / -0) (18 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Legendary BitcoinEXpress (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary Vod (Trust: +28 / =2 / -2) (1416 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Legendary Foxpup (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (856 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary ibminer (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (664 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary TMAN (Trust: +28 / =0 / -2) (1288 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary Lauda (Trust: +34 / =2 / -0) (1390 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary Timelord2067 (Trust: +8 / =4 / -1) (348 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Legendary TheNewAnon135246 (Trust: +21 / =0 / -0) (850 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary mindrust (Trust: neutral) (810 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Legendary cryptodevil (Trust: +9 / =0 / -1) (167 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Legendary suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (3703 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Legendary owlcatz (Trust: +44 / =0 / -1) (278 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary nutildah (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (1722 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Legendary tmfp (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (620 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Legendary yahoo62278 (Trust: +19 / =2 / -0) (1225 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Legendary Last of the V8s (Trust: +6 / =0 / -1) (2409 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Copper Member Lutpin (Trust: +28 / =1 / -1) (819 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary TwitchySeal (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (532 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Legendary bob123 (Trust: neutral) (1403 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Legendary marlboroza (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (1343 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Full Member blurryeyed (Trust: +1 / =5 / -0) (17 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Copper Member nullius (Trust: +4 / =2 / -0) (1221 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Hero Member JollyGood (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (469 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Sr. Member mosprognoz (Trust: +6 / =1 / -1) (161 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Copper Member DireWolfM14 (Trust: +16 / =1 / -0) (1343 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
(sorry, this script didn't include links to custom Trust lists, and I have to go now. I'll add them later) Done.

Allow my to promote my topic here: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

[TECSHARE]

a textbook example of the failure of pure democracy

In a pure democracy, I expect each adult to have one vote. On the forum, voting power depends on earned Merits, so it can't be a pure democracy.

I disagree, it is even worse. All that is, is another layer of democracy and enables even more nepotism. Merits are ironically do not support a meritocracy, but are more often used as pats on the head for people that agree with their positions, and an additional method of gatekeeping.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Alright, so this looks to me like TECSHARE doesn't like a particular clique, so he's recommending (or even creating) his own--and at the same time is deriding the formation of cliques.  A'ight, then.

The members of this mob rely on maintaining arbitrary unwritten rules in order to maintain a system of selective enforcement that enables them to stifle criticism, competition, and functions as a gate keeping mechanism under which none shall pass until the knee is bent and tribute is paid.

I'd say you're going a bit overboard with that statement, and I'd also suggest that you have yet to formulate any written, non-arbitrary rules for anyone to go by, if such a thing were even feasible.  Ever try to herd cats?  And in any case, most of us human beings tend to function in life without a rulebook of our own.  Yes, there are written laws handed down from the mountain of government, but that's another story. 

Would you prefer that the rules of bitcointalk be the be-all, end-all guide for conduct on the forum?  If you say yes, I'd point out that scamming is allowed here and yet I don't think an ethical person would condone that. 

Anyway, any community forms standards over time.  As an example, that's how account selling got to be frowned upon, though not everyone agrees that it's bad for the forum or could increase scams.  And that's fine, we're all free to disagree about that--but DT members should be free to tag account sellers, too.  And if sentiment about account sales turned 180 degrees, any DT members tagging account sellers would probably be excluded from trust lists and the problem would go away on its own.

TECSHARE, I understand your words but there seems to be some dissonance and I'm not exactly clear what you want to accomplish with those recommended inclusions/exclusions other than forming another set of standards which are anything but clear.  In fact, I can't see into your brain so I don't know what they are.  Maybe if you wrote them down?

[TheNewAnon135246]

Alright, so this looks to me like TECSHARE doesn't like a particular clique.

There is no particular clique, he just listed everyone that has excluded him from their trust list (most likely have valid reasons). I have no relationship with well over 90% of the people in his list.

[figmentofmyass]

lol, this will probably land me on one or two more shitlists.

Anyway, any community forms standards over time.

are those standards now set in stone? trust abuse and witch hunts are rampant, but do they have to be? maybe not. maybe TECSHARE is onto something.

I'm not exactly clear what you want to accomplish with those recommended inclusions/exclusions other than forming another set of standards which are anything but clear.  In fact, I can't see into your brain so I don't know what they are.  Maybe if you wrote them down?

he did. see "core tenets". the standards are very clear to me. ie no red tags based on opinions and unproven accusations + defend people from trust abuse in the face of unproven accusations.

i support the core tenets. i've seen countless people run off the forum by rampant trust abuse and petty reputation drama. it's getting old.

i can't give up my avatar or signature but i can put a short link in my personal message. something like "Objective Standards Guild: https://bit.ly/2P79Dxh"

[TheNewAnon135246]

lol, this will probably land me on one or two more shitlists.

Anyway, any community forms standards over time.

are those standards now set in stone? trust abuse and witch hunts are rampant, but do they have to be? maybe not. maybe TECSHARE is onto something.

I'm not exactly clear what you want to accomplish with those recommended inclusions/exclusions other than forming another set of standards which are anything but clear.  In fact, I can't see into your brain so I don't know what they are.  Maybe if you wrote them down?

he did. see "core tenets". the standards are very clear to me. ie no red tags based on opinions and unproven accusations + defend people from trust abuse in the face of unproven accusations.

i support the core tenets. i've seen countless people run off the forum by rampant trust abuse and petty reputation drama. it's getting old.

i can't give up my avatar or signature but i can put a short link in my personal message. something like "Objective Standards Guild: https://bit.ly/2P79Dxh"

If those are his standards then I'd love to hear why I need to be on his distrust list. I have never left negative feedback based someone's opinions or unproven accusations. If TECSHARE thinks I have I would love to see him point out which negative feedback/flag support is wrong and I'd happily correct it. The list in the OP is just his personal witch hunt, nothing more.

[LoyceV]

a textbook example of the failure of pure democracy

In a pure democracy, I expect each adult to have one vote. On the forum, voting power depends on earned Merits, so it can't be a pure democracy.

I disagree, it is even worse.

I think we agree on this

and an additional method of gatekeeping.

I think that's intentional: you can't have a public forum with equal voting power for all 2.7 million accounts, without KYC. And even with KYC, it makes sense that new members don't instantly get voting power (after all, if you move to another country, you can't just go and vote in the next election).
From what I've seen, I expect theymos to be all in for a better system, but unfortunately I haven't seen a better system yet.

i've seen countless people run off the forum by rampant trust abuse and petty reputation drama. it's getting old.

That's one of the main reasons why I always say this:

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

he did.

LOLOLOL. Alright, TECSHARE, when you see this don't flame me to death.  My brain saw the "violation of contractual agreement" part and blanked out because I've seen you write it so many times.

I do think those tenets a bit too stringent, however.  There are shady things that go on here that won't be represented by documented theft or any violation of a contract, so there are going to be negs left which won't (and can't) necessarily be kept to a minimum.

Scammers are very sneaky, they're rampant, and we're dealing with the internet here where people are pretty anonymous.  I'd say the standards for getting a neg on this forum ought to be relatively relaxed.  I'm not saying there isn't trust abuse going on, because there is.  TMAN is a recent example of that, and he got called out for it.  That kind of feedback that he left for TECSHARE needs to stop in general IMO.

lol, this will probably land me on one or two more shitlists.

Not on mine.  I can always agree to disagree with someone on most issues.  And thank you for redirecting me to TS's list.  

And no, I don't think community standards are set in stone, nor that they should include trust abuse or leaving negs for disagreements.  I don't think that's become acceptable, and Theymos even gave some guidance on that a while back when he asked everyone to bury their hatchets.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

We really need an amnesty here, it’s sad to see so many DT members distrusting each other. Most of the DT’s who ~ each other don’t do it because they actually distrust them, it’s done because of disagreements or falling outs.

I really think everybody should have a long, good look at their trust settings & remove anybody who they’ve ~ that isn’t untrustworthy.

Life’s too short guys!

Just off to look at my exclusions to see if anybody deserves to be removed from it.

Have a good day guys!

[suchmoon]

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

iCEBREAKER

You had me until here. The person who posts feedback like this:

Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features.

A good example of red-tagging people for opinions. Not a good example of "standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way".

[DooMAD]

Core tenets:

1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.

I guess it's a step up from calls to remove the tagging system altogether, but I still don't see how this attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" system can encompass all the things people can currently be tagged for.  As an example, tags for trolls and disinformation agents would not be able to co-exist with your criteria.  If someone is deliberately spreading disinformation, such actions are dishonest, unacceptable behaviour.  Accounts responsible should be tagged as such.

[DireWolfM14]

Core tenets:

1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.

2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
 
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.

4. Users who follow these standards should be included in trust lists.

5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible.

I don't care to make this about me when it's so obviously all about you.  But, do provide me with one instance, just one where I've tagged or flagged someone without providing evidence.

What I'm really trying to do here is provide "an objective and observable way" to prove your hypocrisy.  You didn't add me to your exclusion list because of inappropriate  tags or flags, you excluded me because I excluded you.  It was retaliation.  Prove me wrong?

[suchmoon]

As an example, tags for trolls and disinformation agents would not be able to co-exist with your criteria.  If someone is deliberately spreading disinformation, such actions are dishonest, unacceptable behaviour.  Accounts responsible should be tagged as such.

Egregious trolls should be reported to moderators. Red-tagging trolls just creates more drama and doesn't solve trolling at all.

If you insist on tagging liars, neutral tag should be enough unless they actually engage in deceptive trading practices.

[truth or dare]

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

iCEBREAKER

You had me until here. The person who posts feedback like this:

Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features.

A good example of red-tagging people for opinions. Not a good example of "standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way".

I think that could certainly be seen as supporting knowingly a scam or trolling.

Doomad seems to be clearly saying this.

If he was a known bag holder of dash at the time and trying to dupe others into investing under knowingly deceptive false information that is scamming.

Just not sure why you latched onto that one considering the context red tags are currently used.

This is okay as a first step for sure but removal of tagging is the only long term fix because those acting sensibly with red tags now may not always do so once they feel fully entrenched.

I would add ~ to any member opposing the removal of tags and reliance upon The obective standards of the flagging system

perhaps 2 lists are best one of your own choosing and one submitted by more hardcore reformists that want to see a real long term move to flags and removal of tagging entirely.

Anyone that wants tagging retained should be ~

They have been given ample opportunity to present a case to defend against it being incredibly net negative and they have not been able to

therefore their obsession with retaining it is likely to leverage the subjectivity there for personal retribution and gain.

I would say that it can be useful to remove from DT some of the most abusive members but long term absolute removal of the potential to abuse rather than the current abusers.

Better to build a union of members that can ensure that fair and transparent standards are applied to all members equally.

for now ~ thepharmacist and loyceV those are merely spreading false information and deliberately fighting against those objective standards.

~ quicksellout7 should be removed as a matter of principle ( although he should be supporting this so he does not have to be controlled by lauda saving that red tag over pn7 forever , along with nulliusssssssss, jjg

I would give benefit of the doubt to a few others that seem to wish for a level playing field for all.

Not sure I would remove timelord at this time. I mean I have not heard his thoughts on moving to a more objective standard.

I think It will be tricky to get consensus for this but all members should wish to move to an objective set of standards. The only ones that do not can not even present a case for their views that stands up to scrutiny in the context being net positive for the forum.

I think to garner widespread support you would require consensus for the included excluded list. Best to focus on just forming a union of those that want an end to red tags and move to the flagging system.

Inclusions could be Royce , AMN,  mikey, anyone that can be observed to want objective standards or who makes an effort to treat members equally

Personal squabbles should probably be out aside if they will support a foundation of objective standards as a base for the trust system.

[nutildah]

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

iCEBREAKER

You had me until here. The person who posts feedback like this:

Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features.

A good example of red-tagging people for opinions. Not a good example of "standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way".

LOL. This did immediately come to mind when I read the OP in this thread.

Pretty objectively certain this is why TS likes him:

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does. 

I'd like to see what TECSHARE's trust rating is at default trust compared to what it will be when including and excluding those in his SUGGESTIONS.

And I would also like to know who gets to decide what counts as an "objective standard".

[ibminer]

Do you even know what the word "objective" means?  And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?  

Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob".

Subjectively, you're a tool. That's just my opinion though.

Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms.

BTW, how did you come up with that image??
Looks a bit like a QS (QuickSeller) and OG (OgNasty) combined in the logo.. lol  are they the leaders of this "guild"??  

[truth or dare]

Do you even know what the word "objective" means?  And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?  

Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob".

Subjectively, you're a tool. That's just my opinion though.

Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms.

BTW, how did you come up with that image??
Looks a bit like a QS (QuickSeller) and OG (OgNasty) combined in the logo.. lol  are they the leaders of this "guild"??  

They don't need to be TS set of objective criteria essentially. But they seem reaonable for a trust system to prevent scamming

There will always be some subjectivity it is unavoidable.

These are insoluble problems an entirely subjective system that is wide open to such a crazy variance in views as to what red tags are used for

* members are treated equally and with consistency

* free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion

* high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals

* to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust

* prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system

* prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots


* preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about
lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone.


and probably many other insoluble problems then the entirely subjective, gamed and manipulated tagging system must be abolished.

There is no net gain to retaining it

Objectivity need not be any one person's ideas ...it simply needs to be a set of definable solid points or stipulations that all members are measured against equally. Those not wishing for all members to be fairly measured against object rules or criteria need to be watched closely.

It seems sensible to use the trust system to warn people about those that have demonstrated they are a direct financial threat.

I though the same qs og symbol at first glance.

[TECSHARE]

As expected the usual red nose, red assed clan shows up in force to try to manage any independent thought into a narrative in their favor. Let the butt hurt flow through you Bozonians.

If those are his standards then I'd love to hear why I need to be on his distrust list. I have never left negative feedback based someone's opinions or unproven accusations. If TECSHARE thinks I have I would love to see him point out which negative feedback/flag support is wrong and I'd happily correct it. The list in the OP is just his personal witch hunt, nothing more.

AHHH I seee! I AM the one on a witch hunt now! That is a blatant lie. You are another two bit power tripping antagonistic forum cop. One quick scan over just the first page of your left ratings explains why you are on the suggested exclusion list. You are firmly within the clown car.

I do think those tenets a bit too stringent, however.  There are shady things that go on here that won't be represented by documented theft or any violation of a contract, so there are going to be negs left which won't (and can't) necessarily be kept to a minimum.

Only if you refuse to let go of the delusion that mass tagging is going to change anything. The compulsion to tag absolutely everyone for any infraction is not only self serving and creating unnecessary conflict, it is counter productive. Con artists return in seconds with a bought account, legitimate users caught up in the dragnet leave and never come back.

It takes a lot of time and effort to build a reputation here just to have obsessive compulsive control freaks shit all over it for nothing more than to make themselves feel useful. It accomplishes NOTHING for the community, and in fact is destructive and not constructive. Past observable evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, the returns on negative rating users is quite diminished, and worse serves as cover for abuse. Additionally all the drama over petty bullshit allows ACTUAL con artists that fall under those objective standards to hide in the drama and signal noise created by tagging users for petty bullshit.

The question is not if every scammer is going to be caught and tagged, because it is absolutely a fact that is not going to happen regardless. The question is, is it worth constantly creating drama, conflict, covering up abuse, and driving away good users in exchange for getting those that fall out side of these standards? I think it is clear, it is not worth it. Of course for obsessive compulsive control freaks mass tagging people, it was never about serving the community, it was always about serving their own ulterior motives, egos and compulsions.

and an additional method of gatekeeping.

I think that's intentional: you can't have a public forum with equal voting power for all 2.7 million accounts, without KYC. And even with KYC, it makes sense that new members don't instantly get voting power (after all, if you move to another country, you can't just go and vote in the next election).
From what I've seen, I expect theymos to be all in for a better system, but unfortunately I haven't seen a better system yet.

Absolutely, just as negative ratings were intended to mark scammers and not as a tool to serve ulterior motives and petty vendettas. Unfortunately, like negative ratings, merit has become not just a filter to keep out spammers and shit posters, but a method for those in control of the current system to use it to reinforce their own control, just for the sake of being in charge of it to serve their own ulterior motives.

Core tenets:

1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.

I guess it's a step up from calls to remove the tagging system altogether, but I still don't see how this attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" system can encompass all the things people can currently be tagged for.  As an example, tags for trolls and disinformation agents would not be able to co-exist with your criteria.  If someone is deliberately spreading disinformation, such actions are dishonest, unacceptable behaviour.  Accounts responsible should be tagged as such.

It doesn't. The point is there are diminishing returns on tagging people past a certain point. The real question is it worth it to subject everyone to this potential abuse in order to get those grey area cases? I don't think so. I think it is counterproductive.

"I don't care to make this about me..." [immediately begins making it about himself and projects this upon me]

Do you even know what the word "objective" means?  And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?  

Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob".

Subjectively, you're a tool. That's just my opinion though.

Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Am I a hypocrite? How many negative ratings have I left for people out side of these standards? You seem to be confusing speech with action, but what is new? The clown car riders are big fans of projecting their flaws on to others. Last I checked I have several ratings on my page based in nothing more than butt hurt story time, and those that left them refuse to substantiate them. The trust system is designed to be a penalty for fraudulent behavior, claiming that having this penalty used against me is "losing no freedoms" is asinine, not that I expect a logical argument from you.

[figmentofmyass]

Most of the DT’s who ~ each other don’t do it because they actually distrust them, it’s done because of disagreements or falling outs.

exclusions aren't just about whether you trust someone (eg in a trade). they indicate whether you trust someone else's judgment (eg about their inclusions) and their use of feedback.

anarchist societies practice ostracization as a non-violent means to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. that's all TECSHARE is encouraging---the use of non-violent consensus to ostracize bad actors. this is the only say that individuals have in a group that operates by general consensus.

And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?  

humans are subjective, no escaping that. does that mean we can't strive towards objective standards?