The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[nutildah]

I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed.

We just think that you're being hypocritical. Like I've said to you in the past and DooMAD is saying now, you've got to lead by example if you want others to follow. We're not the ones trying to re-invent the wheel here, you are. So if you want it re-invented, show us you are capable of making a new shape. Otherwise it just sounds like you are complaining about the same 'ol same 'ol: you think the wheel sucks, we get it.

You have to manifest change in yourself instead of expecting the world to change around you.

[o_e_l_e_o]

o_e_l_e_o I don't think tecshare realized that you are open to adopting an objective standard so long as it affords the opportunity to produce an objective warning that members are being placed or are being requested to place themselves in direct financial danger.

I am definitely unsatisfied with the current amount of frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags which are handed out, but I completely disagree that we should be waiting for scams to be successful before tagging them, and I disagree with the unproven implication that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers is counter-productive. The problem is that TECSHARE is entirely unwilling to even consider a compromise. It's either his way or you are wrong.

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

Completely agree. This thread was initially created in response to the "gang" thread, which was initially created because of comments regarding people growing thicker skin. No one should be trying to police what other people say. You disagree? Fine. You are offended? Also fine. Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.

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

It depends where you draw the line of "high level scammers". There are some scammers who I agree should never have their red trust removed, but there are more than a handful of DT "feuds" consisting of red tags which are either entirely frivolous or blown way out of proportion. Even scammer flags expire after 3 years or 10 years for type 2 and 3 respectively.

You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
- De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.

Your other bullet points I more-or-less agree with. All the infighting and ever more frequent retaliatory ratings achieve nothing useful and simply cheapen the entire system. Similarly, people shouldn't be afraid of red trust when it comes to raising points of contention.

So far I have noticed that you have been prepared to debate the positives and negatives and have been reasonable. This is how each member should be willing to engage.

As have you. I don't know if you are or are not an alt of CH/TOAA as many users suspect, but this more reasoned approach is much appreciated.

Now try arguing the logic of the other points I made.

The supposition that there is a huge net negative to the forum does not logically follow from the proposition of pre-emptively tagging scammers, regardless of how many times you repeat it. I know you want it to be true, because such a thing would support your already reached conclusions, but if you can't provide some evidence to support your opinions, then there really is little point in arguing. You have already made up your mind, and there is nothing I can say which will make you even consider alternative points of view.

[suchmoon]

I hope you all are having fun picking peanuts out of my turds. Just a reminder, a handful of peanuts does not equal a pattern. What is a pattern is obvious with one look at any of the left ratings from any of the clown car riders here so vociferously protesting any changes.

The changes that you're proposing (include some users, exclude some others) are nothing special and probably don't have much of an effect on anyone "protesting" here. The pattern that's emerging seems to show you presenting wild claims, refusing to substantiate them, accusing others of doing things that you do yourself, and denying that you should be held to your own standards.

You would probably have more success if you honestly said "I don't like these people, please exclude them". This cockamamie "guild" just exposes your hypocrisy.

[Vod]

I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed.

Techy, I'm sensing the hypocrisy here.

Don't you record and comment on every single trust I leave or take away?  Haven't you recently been inventing new accusations against me and speaking for other people?

You need to understand no one is going to follow your orders to change until you change first.

[hacker1001101001]

BayAreaCoins
HostFat
bill gator

Are these accounts by standards of this guild?

This is just like show me the man I will show you the crime attitude. Come on it's reflecting dude. Above people atleast doesn't abuse it at the level many of the people's on the exclusion list in the OP do so at an huge amount at daily basis hence they still suit to be the member of the OSG !

Thanks for this, people above abuse trust. So no guild?

As I said they would consider an respectful apology but you don't, and it makes them more humanly than you. So yes guild.

[suchmoon]

As I said they would consider an respectful apology but you don't, and it makes them more humanly than you. So yes guild.

Apology for what? Are you advocating for a "standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way" or a "system of selective enforcement that [...] functions as a gate keeping mechanism under which none shall pass until the knee is bent and tribute is paid"?

Sounds like bending the knee and paying tribute is fine for some guild members, or maybe you're not a member, it's quite confusing.

[marlboroza]

BayAreaCoins
HostFat
bill gator

Are these accounts by standards of this guild?

This is just like show me the man I will show you the crime attitude. Come on it's reflecting dude. Above people atleast doesn't abuse it at the level many of the people's on the exclusion list in the OP do so at an huge amount at daily basis hence they still suit to be the member of the OSG !

Thanks for this, people above abuse trust. So no guild?

As I said they would consider an respectful apology but you don't, and it makes them more humanly than you. So yes guild.

So objective standards guild for trust abusers (according to rules of guild)?

[truth or dare]

I hope you all are having fun picking peanuts out of my turds. Just a reminder, a handful of peanuts does not equal a pattern. What is a pattern is obvious with one look at any of the left ratings from any of the clown car riders here so vociferously protesting any changes.

The changes that you're proposing (include some users, exclude some others) are nothing special and probably don't have much of an effect on anyone "protesting" here. The pattern that's emerging seems to show you presenting wild claims, refusing to substantiate them, accusing others of doing things that you do yourself, and denying that you should be held to your own standards.

You would probably have more success if you honestly said "I don't like these people, please exclude them". This cockamamie "guild" just exposes your hypocrisy.

This is unhelpful, largely untrue and quite a nasty summary of tecshares actions. This is misleading at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

His core point is moving to objective transparent standards that he will be held to of course,  the lists are suggestions only. You are deliberately trying to discredit his core points by blowing way out of proportion some of the list selections. The list should be a suggestion or starting point for people to investigate for themselves. I don't think it is sensible to expect any member to keep appraised to every tag each member on these lists is going to  make / has made and investigate each case deeply.

He would have a serious problem finding accounts that have an impeccable tagging history . He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging. The tag you originally raised as problematic was way more valuable and accurate than several of those left by members that you include or have included recently. You recognize this clearly since you tags are very robust.

The strange thing about you is that you of all members seem to be already adopting pretty stringent objective standards that are aligned with those Tecshare is proposing.

This demonstrates that you know how to use the trust system optimally but are afraid to counter those frivolous ratings that you know should be countered l, and that you have a strange personality that drives you to put appearing smart, funny and semi- cruel above what is best for the forum. Give it up.

Going by your use of the trust system from my initial investigations you should be included not excluded. The strange thing is your bark is worse than your bite. It's almost like you want to talk like a bad boy but operate as a school prefect.

You are not the smartest nor funniest member here, so stop trying to be, and you would be clearly be net positive.
Your sarky and bitter style is okay in very small doses.

o_e_l_e_o is accurate with his assessment. I disagree that pre-emptive warnings could ever be net positive in light of the insoluble problems that they produce. However, if sensible and reasonable consideration is given to both sides, then a workable solution that accommodates and addresses both sets of valid concerns can result in a system that  benefits the whole forum going forward.
From what he has said, then I see no reason to exclude him either and would include him on my list.

We need to look forward. Even those that have left frivolous tags can be included if they are willing to operate according to objective transparent standards going forward. Out immediate goals should not be getting out own tags removed ( if we have them) it should be the optimal solution going forward for the entire forum.

Tecshare is clearly being bullied in terms of coordinated character attacks by multiple members. It is not nice to watch at all. I see a member with years of impeccable trade history being treated with no respect and addressed as if he is an enemy of bitcoin and this forum. I am still reading through his post history and freely admit the guy seems pretty inteligent and possesses a robust history of producing strong argument and valuable insight.

I feel that any member subjected to a long period of sustained and at times viscous attacks will  inevitably become very defensive. I would not criticize them for that.

I guess it all depends on the atmosphere you want here.
You would reason that a group of people that want bitcoin to succeed and are not trying to scam each other or anyone else could be mature enough to get along or just avoid those that irritate them.

My prime concern is The freedom of speech aspect. Other's view the prevention of scamming as more important. A sensible and well designed system can find the optimal balance.

Going forward, discussing the specific members on the list should be avoided. Their future actions will determine their suitability for either list. So long as you wish to move to a system based upon transparent objective standards and wish others to a adopt those too then you should be included. Each of out actions can determine if we remain.

Abolish tagging and focus level 1 flags optimally.

There is no argument that will stand up to scrutiny that insists tagging must remain in The best interests of the forum. If you disagree then present it.

Case closed , join the guild, or at least support a move to transparent objective standards and create your own lists. I don't think It matters that much, as long as you are honest with yourselves and stand against any that will not operate within The objective standards It makes little difference.

Or present an argument for tagging lemonade drinkers or that guy who called you a twat, or that ass hole who was too Stupid to adopt your opinion on something you view as very important.

I feel this guild will grow with every frivolous tag. So patience is key. Things will not change immediately. This thread will be very very long I expect.
  
marlboroza has avoided my direct question but continues to fixate on the lists ?

[figmentofmyass]

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.

now you're just talking nonsense.

nutildah claimed i was in the "vast minority" here. i understood that to suggest by extension that he was speaking for the "vast majority" of board members, and said so here. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion and repeatedly personally attack me for it, which is incredibly petty. get over it.

and yes, this is a tangent that has absolutely fuck all to do with the topic. there's no reason to write a half dozen posts attacking me personally over this in an obvious attempt to discredit me. your repeated mischaracterizations and petty personal attacks are getting old. you clearly have no intention of discussing the issue at hand.

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.

it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a comment about the current makeup of DT and how the trust system is intended to work. i said repeatedly that i wasn't accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but you decided to repeatedly twist my words into an "accusation" anyway. 3 posts later, you're still trying to attack me for this! wtf?

You might want to review your own trust list to make sure it meets your standards.

i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references. both feedbacks appear to have been left after alleged trust abuse, which raises another important question:

part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.

in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.

@suchmoon, please respect that i'm just attempting to participate in a discussion about the topic. i should be able to discuss trust system standards without constantly defending myself from your off-topic personal attacks virtually every time i post. i am sure you are capable of responding to my position or questions without engaging in ad hominem attacks. i'd really appreciate that, thanks.

[marlboroza]

He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.

Maybe you can answer this:

Please provide objective number of how many accounts is allowed to tag.

I'll rephrase.

According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse trust?
Question to OP, why other ICO payed bump accounts are not in "suggested inclusions" list? Why only hacker

[GazetaBitcoin]

A small erratum is needed here.

.
This thread was initially created in response to the "gang" thread, which was initially created because of comments regarding people growing thicker skin. No one should be trying to police what other people say. You disagree? Fine. You are offended? Also fine. Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.

I don't know if this thread was a response to the gang thread, but I can say for sure that the gang thread was not created as a response to Timelord's ridiculous allegations, with no substance / proof, towards this profile against press. Nor it was determined by the comments regarding growing a thicker skin.

Seriously, it wasn't. I had the idea for this topic for a while ago and it sounded funny That's why I said to be counted as a pamphlet. Besides, I also stated that I was determined to write it after seeing all xtraelv's historic topics. Never thought though it would trigger such reactions, as Timelord's (including his deleted posts, in case you saw them).

Xtraelv also mentioned multiple scandals in his topic related to historic forum battles, but his topic disn't generate such reactions, although it was a serious topic. Mine was a pamphlet and I wrote it when I was in a mood for fun. But I had it in mind for since some time ago and I just waited the moment when I felt also in the mood for writing something funny. Apparently, nobody felt disturbed excepting Timelord, although I used expression as "the clowns cartel", "controlling merit / trust system" etc. People understood humour -- and I'm glad -- excepting him.

I also mentioned this guild in the nascent gangs section, but, apparently, TECSHARE understood the humour and he didn't come with replies against my topic.

What I want to say is that the respective topic was made when I felt I'm in the mood for fun, not as a response to Timelord's delusion. Regarding him and his feedback on me, I think it's clear that the guy "speaks another language", to say so

Regarding "Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.", I fully agree with that.

[truth or dare]

He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.

Maybe you can answer this:

Please provide objective number of how many accounts is allowed to tag.

I'll rephrase.

According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse trust?
Question to OP, why other ICO payed bump accounts are not in suggested inclusions? Why only hacker

Those are interesting questions I expect this is not currently binary.. Perhaps the severity of the " abuse " as well as frequency should be factored in. Sounds very complex perhaps creating a system that makes all of that largely unimportant is best. Actually perhaps that is the only way?5

You didn't answer my question that I asked you and then again pointed out later that you seem to be avoiding it?

[tmfp]

He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.

I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other.
The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence.

Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in.
I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies.
I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF.



 

[truth or dare]

He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.

I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other.
The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence.

Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in.
I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies.
I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF.



 

Those concerns or views are largely irrelevant now. pre-emptive can be accommodated if that is what you are referring to. Which I expect it is, since nobody is claiming tagging proven scammers has any net negative aspect to it that is being scrutinized.

If it is true that you have never left a frivolous tag then you will have no need to object to the move being suggested. Your inclusion should be guaranteed. You would hardly notice the move.

I would be interested to hear your objections if you have any to the insoluble problems that tagging for non. scamming, attempting to scam or placing members in direct financial danger generates for members here.

Objections pulled out of an ass without supporting argument are as offensive as assertions.

If what you say is true then I see no reason for you to be excluded. Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.

Nice to see strong support for either side with a meeting I the middle and sensible reasoned debate from many.

Thanks for creating this thread and guild tecshare. I see many current and future members. Time is on the side of those that seek transparent objective standards that ensure the fair consistent treatment of all members.

[marlboroza]

You didn't answer my question that I asked you and then again pointed out later that you seem to be avoiding it?

Not really. You asked me "do I support moving entirely over to a flagging system"? No, I don't. There are too many tagged scammers to support this. Moving system to flags only would wipe all trust records and I don't think anyone will bother to flag each one of them. Or do you have something different in mind?

What about positive trust? How would you handle this? What about neutral feedback? You are invited to post about my trust abuse @truth or dare.

Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.

Lol, where?

[figmentofmyass]

Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.

Lol, where?

iCEBREAKER

I am definitely unsatisfied with the current amount of frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags which are handed out, but I completely disagree that we should be waiting for scams to be successful before tagging them, and I disagree with the unproven implication that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers is counter-productive. The problem is that TECSHARE is entirely unwilling to even consider a compromise. It's either his way or you are wrong.

in my view, any movement whatsoever away from the current situation of rampant trust abuse and towards any standards whatsoever for negative DT feedback would be an achievement. there is all sorts of room for middle ground between the status quo and the what is stated in the OP.

nobody needs to fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude any of the people listed. i think that's one of the primary misconceptions naysayers are trying to promote here with cherry picked examples and personal attacks.

i was involuntarily thrown into this discussion by virtue of my inclusion in the OP, but i do agree with the call for a general shift away from "no standards" and towards "some objective standards". i'm willing to stand behind that, and i hope there are other reasonable people out there who share that view.

it's impossible to fully remove human subjectivity, prevent all conflict, or account for every possible situation with these kind of standards. that doesn't mean we can't honestly work towards a more fair system that is not characterized by rampant "frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags". it's incumbent on anyone who wants to move away from that sort of a system to do their own research and customize their trust lists accordingly.

[marlboroza]

Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.

Lol, where?

iCEBREAKER

Oh, so you do read my posts. Any reason why he stop doing this?  

cherry picked examples and personal attacks.

Trust abuse is cherry picked example now? Tagging someone for "trolling" is cherry picked example NOW 

Pointing trust abuse is personal attack now?

Nice guild you have here.

[truth or dare]

You didn't answer my question that I asked you and then again pointed out later that you seem to be avoiding it?

Not really. You asked me "do I support moving entirely over to a flagging system"? No, I don't. There are too many tagged scammers to support this. Moving system to flags only would wipe all trust records and I don't think anyone will bother to flag each one of them. Or do you have something different in mind?

What about positive trust? How would you handle this? What about neutral feedback?

Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.

Lol, where?

okay, you raise some valid questions that do need some further thought to provide the optimal solution.

all "feedback" could either be positive or neutral? if a person deserves a negative that would at a minimum be a type1 flag. There could be further objective standards for positive feedback at another stage to prevent trust farming or unwarranted accumulation? another bonus of objective standards.

that could be open to community debate and discussion
nothing need be set in stone at this stage, this is the formative stage. Forming a union of those with a desire for the implementation of optimal system is the first stage.

Well, he removed that member that suchmoon raised concerns over right? so he is demonstrating he is working hard to take in all relevant feedback.

So you would like to move to a transparent objective standards based system that ensures the equal, fair and consistent treatment of all members you just want the process to be clear and established before getting on board? or is that not what you are saying?

I will be considering all of this over the weekend. I am certain tecshare has the best interests of the entire forum at heart. I am not hijacking this thread for my own desires. I am merely voicing suggestions that should be scrutinized and evaluated. Nobody arrives at the optimal solution immediately, sensible and reasonable criticism is key to the process.

If tecshare requests I reserve my " suggestions" for my own thread I will consider that for sure. I will support this guild regardless.

Freedom of speech is the most valuable privilege here, theymos has done an amazing job for many years. I may seem ungrateful l, but I'm not. It's just that I believe his
experiment with decentralized governance was a failure in comparison to his own centralized approach to things. Sorry about that. It would be unrealistic to think one person could immediately create the optimal decentralized governance structure on an anonymous forum. Perhaps patience is not my strong suit.

[marlboroza]

Well, he removed that member that suchmoon raised concerns over right? so he is demonstrating he is working hard to take in all relevant feedback.

Working hard? Please.

One swallow doesn't make a summer. What he showed in this thread is that he is hypocrite, that's it. Ranting in reputation because someone tagged him, at the same time having account who also placed "troll" -ve rating in his trust network, at the same time suggesting others to include this account, at the same time some users calling this "cherry picked"  

He agrees this is good feedback but he doesn't agree this is good feedback  

Suggesting objective standards and at the same time can't provide proof to back up his words in trust feedback!

Can't back up his own topic and guild. Sees facts as attack. Deflects from facts.

[figmentofmyass]

cherry picked examples and personal attacks.

Trust abuse is cherry picked example now? Tagging someone for "trolling" is cherry picked example NOW

not sure what you're referring to specifically. i was largely talking about the examples and personal attacks that have been aimed at me, which i've directly responded to.

in general, i think we should be talking about patterns/repeated abuse of the trust system. we should also give everyone a chance to rehabilitate wrongfully given negative trust. we should be seeking out peaceful resolution instead of finger pointing. you may have noticed that i have made painstaking efforts not to accuse any person of wrongdoing, despite having to defend myself from multiple unprovoked personal attacks. perhaps worth reiterating:

nobody needs to fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude any of the people listed.

it's impossible to fully remove human subjectivity, prevent all conflict, or account for every possible situation with these kind of standards. that doesn't mean we can't honestly work towards a more fair system that is not characterized by rampant "frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags".

everybody should probably have a threshold where another user's feedback/trust list is not valuable, or is detrimental to the trust system. at that point, they should probably remove or exclude that user.

should one instance of questionable feedback over many years be enough to reach that threshold? it's up to individuals to make that determination. like i mentioned earlier, there is unfortunately some nuance required here and i'm having trouble deciding exactly how to deal with it:

part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.

in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.