The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[truth or dare]

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!

I have read your post 3x. Although I'm hitting the scotch early this evening, I am certain that even sober I would struggle to gain from it that which you wish to convey. That is not meant as an insult.  Just so you know.

Please consider all of my previous replies to you in this thread and do your very best to understand that the lists are of small consequence after transparent objective standards are set in place. Also if a person with frivolous tagging habits States they will reform to abide by transparent objective standards,  then I say l let their actions speak for them going forward, for the good of the entire forum. Include them and observe carefully. Never be afraid to do that Which you think is correct. The transparent objective standards will protect you, if you deserve protection.

It is inevitable the guild will eventually succeed. Everyone wishes to be treated fairly when they realize the spots with advantage are saturated.

[marlboroza]

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.

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.

It doesn't look like you were from here. But you see, in order to call yourself this guild member, you need to follow these standards! Why are you ignoring suggested inclusions/inclusions?

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

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...]

It clearly says, "lets work on these standards, exclude trust abusers and include not-trust abusers". Do you see any other point of this lists? Lists are there for no reason? Hm, principle is also here for no reason?

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.

If #1 and #2 doesn't exist, how many of #3 (regularly, repeatedly) is acceptable by these standards?

I want to know OP's reasoning and opinions, is it too much to ask?

[truth or dare]

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.

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.

It doesn't look like you were from here. But you see, in order to call yourself this guild member, you need to follow these standards! Why are you ignoring suggested inclusions/inclusions?

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

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...]

It clearly says, "lets work on these standards, exclude trust abusers and include not-trust abusers". Do you see any other point of this lists? Lists are there for no reason? Hm, principle is also here for no reason?

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.

If #1 and #2 doesn't exist, how many of #3 (regularly, repeatedly) is acceptable by these standards?

I want to know OP's reasoning and opinions, is it too much to ask?

suggested does not mean mandatory, that's is a very important distinction.

Suggest, denotes non essential. You appear to be fixating on non essential points and that is distorting your evaluation of the core points being made here.

don't allow personal prior grievances to pollute your critical reasoning capacity. Set aside those shackles for the good of the entire forum. Welcome to the guild.

[marlboroza]

suggested does not equal mandatory, that's is a very important distinction.

Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. [...] Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.


SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]


SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...]

Are we reading the same topic? What TECSHARE suggested is not by standards of this guild! I just don't see what is so hard to understand here. Some of suggested inclusions are trust abusers according to topic. TECSHARE is trust abuser according to topic.

[truth or dare]

suggested does not equal mandatory, that's is a very important distinction.

Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. [...] Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.


SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]


SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...]

Are we reading the same topic?

this one?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.0

suggested... try a different dictionary.
It It's dynamic and of small consequence.

First address whether you want transparent objective standards ...then drill down. 

TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set in stone. Your assistance to establish their commitment will be useful at a later stage. Great to have you on board, when will you be wearing. the avatar and sig?

[marlboroza]

TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set on stone.

Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite.

suggested... try a different dictionary.

Suggested..."based on these standards"

[truth or dare]

TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set on stone.

Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite.

How can you reach that conclusion? make your credible case they are creating more frivolous tags than those in the exclusions and we will observe if they are removed?

you are claiming he is a hypocrite, you need to demonstrate your assertion is credible in the context of available options he has.

If you can, then I'm sure he will again demonstrate he is working hard to take on board all information available to him.

Again this is largely unimportant once peoples behaviors are governed by transparent objective standards.

If you are claiming that previous frivolous use of the tagging system should invalidate their stated desires to operate within the transparent objective standards Being discussed, that Is for the community or guild to determine.

I being very generous may not support that view. I say if they publicly express desire to adopt transparent objective standards as those discussed, then give them the opportunity to stand by their word. Personal grudges must be buried for the good of the forum going forward.

[marlboroza]

Now you are just trolling.

TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set on stone.

Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite.

How can you reach that conclusion? make your credible case they are creating more frivolous tags than those in the exclusions and we will observe if they are removed?

Ok:

According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse trust?

Can I get clear answer?

[figmentofmyass]

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.

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.

It clearly says, "lets work on these standards, exclude trust abusers and include not-trust abusers". Do you see any other point of this lists? Lists are there for no reason? Hm, principle is also here for no reason?

TECSHARE and i are not the same person. i didn't create those lists. why are you directing this at me?

i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild. i already strived to work towards them in my own feedback and trust list before this thread existed.

that doesn't mean i will automatically include/exclude people listed in the OP, nor will i endlessly defend them re their use of feedback. that's not my responsibility. i am responsible for my use of the trust system.

you and suchmoon may be here to attack people, but i am not. i am here to discuss the standards themselves, and what we can do to build a better system via consensus. i am perfectly fine with current DT members retaining their status---i'm just hoping we can pressure them towards more objective standards, and that the more abusive ones will be forced to rein in their abuse or be excluded.

everyone should do their own research and customize their own trust lists. what's important here is the standards (or lack thereof) the community builds consensus around.

If #1 and #2 doesn't exist, how many of #3 (regularly, repeatedly) is acceptable by these standards?

answered here. tl;dr = "it depends. let's have a conversation about it because it's complicated." remember, those who employ no standards at all (frivolous or opinion-based tags) are at an inherent advantage since other people can't "stoop to their level". this creates a frustrating conundrum that i haven't quite figure out yet.

[truth or dare]

Now you are just trolling.

TS is demonstrating his "suggested" lists are dynamic and not set on stone.

Tecshare demonstrated that he is hypocrite.

How can you reach that conclusion? make your credible case they are creating more frivolous tags than those in the exclusions and we will observe if they are removed?

Ok:

According to guild rules, how many times guild members are allowed to abuse trust?

Can I get clear answer?

I suspect the answer is less than the excludes, although as I said tecshare is likely too complex to be binary. The answer you must accept, could be beyond your capacity to fully understand and appreciate. That's why it' is only a suggestion.

If you wish to discuss each include and exclude .suggested" only ts can answer. Await his answer before speculating. Send pm for expedited one on one attention and explanations.

So long as you uphold the transparent objective standards discussed I think you'll be doing your bit. Or start your own transparent objective standards based guild and I may support them both. Perhaps I'll prefer your lists, or may be I'll make my own. Tecshare may support both since it does not matter who's guild it is.

[suchmoon]

i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion

Yes, it was unreasonable because you blew it out of proportion, repeatedly (millions of members), after nutildah had already stated what he meant. I take it that's another one of those standards where you get to talk shit but melt down when someone dares to call you out on it.

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.

You said scam busters or whoever it was voted each other into DT, with no proof of any kind, when a more plausible explanation is available. So yeah, a conspiracy theory. I understand why you'd want to backpedal from that too but it's kinda hard to ignore it seeing how you built a whole mountain of bullshit on top of it.

i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references.

For such a vocal trust abuse fighter you're incredibly dense when it comes to the actual use (and abuse) of the trust system. So you didn't review the people you added to your trust list? How did you pick them? Based on nice words they said?

This guild is just brilliant, and getting better by the day.

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.

Nice pretzel trying to justify more trust abuse. Eye for an eye, what could possibly go wrong. Quit looking for excuses or wipe your trust list if it's becoming too hard for you to grasp your own standards.

@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.

Could've fooled me.

[marlboroza]

why are you directing this at me?

You said trust abuse is "cherrypicked example", I don't see how is that attacking you, it seems you are trying to attack users and when they respond you act like you are a victim.

I suspect the answer is less than the excludes, although as I said tecshare is likely too complex to be binary. The answer you must accept, could be beyond your capacity to fully understand and appreciate. That's why it' is only a suggestion.

Ok, got it, you suspect answer is "according to objective standards of this guild, it is just fine to create abusive tags (abusive by standards of guild)".

For such a vocal trust abuse fighter you're incredibly dense when it comes to the actual use (and abuse) of the trust system. So you didn't review the people you added to your trust list? How did you pick them? Based on nice words they said?

They picked them based on principles of this Guild, of course  

i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild. i already strived to work towards them in my own feedback and trust list before this thread existed.

...you remember those principles, right? "Evidence of theft, violation of contracts, violation of applicable laws"...

This guild is just brilliant, and getting better by the day.

Maybe OP is trying to say that according to him anyone who left tag before scam happened is trust abuser(of course, everyone except him and some of his trust fwiends)? That would make sense.

[figmentofmyass]

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.

Yes, it was unreasonable because you blew it out of proportion, repeatedly (millions of members), after nutildah had already stated what he meant.

the post you linked to was a direct reply to TECSHARE, not to me, so i didn't actually see it, since i was directly responding to nutildah. you are assuming malice where there was none. TECSHARE obviously interpreted nutildah's words the exact same way i did.

you can continue making mountains out of molehills, but this point still stands:

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.

I take it that's another one of those standards where you get to talk shit but melt down when someone dares to call you out on it.

nice, another blatantly fallacious attempt at false equivalence!

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.

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.

You said scam busters or whoever it was voted each other into DT, with no proof of any kind, when a more plausible explanation is available.

this is what i said, and the subsequent post is what i meant:

we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.

which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions?

if what i did there was obviously so fucking horrible and untrustworthy and dishonest you should let readers decide for themselves. no need to follow me around making a dozen posts that (unconvincingly) beat the same dead horse! let it go dude.

i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references.

For such a vocal trust abuse fighter you're incredibly dense when it comes to the actual use (and abuse) of the trust system. So you didn't review the people you added to your trust list?

of course i did, but there's like 40 inclusions on my trust list added over a long period of time. i can't recall every single feedback or the circumstances surrounding them. it would make things a lot simpler if you would simply state your claim ("user X is on your trust list and is engaging in trust abuse"). that's what an honest person would do.

if you want to point out a case of trust abuse, i'm happy to review it, and perhaps adjust my trust list accordingly if it's warranted. instead, you're just asserting falsities about my actions and piling on ad hominems.

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.

Nice pretzel trying to justify more trust abuse. Eye for an eye, what could possibly go wrong. Quit looking for excuses or wipe your trust list if it's becoming too hard for you to grasp your own standards.

i didn't suggest that. i'm trying to flesh out a complex issue and i'm asking for guidance about it from people in this thread, given the stated goals in the OP and the current power dynamics in the trust system. you are clearly putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. you're also ignoring these points in the OP, which i agree with, and which leave room for some level of grey area---not nearly as much grey area as the current system, but some nonetheless:

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.

i also think theymos made a good point when he said this, which i'm trying to reconcile with my view of how the trust system should be used:

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)

@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.

Could've fooled me.

what is that supposed to mean?

you have launched non-stop ad hominems against me in this thread. i have not done so to you. i have merely been forced to defend myself. pointing out fallacies as such---especially in self-defense---does not constitute a reciprocal attack on you. if you would stop hyper focusing on me as a person and constantly trying to attack my credibility, we could maybe even have a fruitful discussion about the actual topic.

why are you directing this at me?

You said trust abuse is "cherrypicked example", I don't see how is that attacking you

that's sort of incomprehensible. this is what i actually said:

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.

it seems you are trying to attack users and when they respond you act like you are a victim.

i have only pointed out when others (primarily suchmoon) have engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against me rather than respond to my arguments.

personal attacks aren't necessary and aren't conducive to an honest discussion. neither are the sort of intentional fallacies i have been forced to point out over and over. pointing out intellectual dishonesty in self-defense =/= playing the victim, and it certainly doesn't mean i am attacking others. i have had to defend myself nonstop in this thread against attacks on my character. if you perceive that as me attacking other people then i'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

i have made painstaking efforts not to attack other people. i have only argued against other peoples' arguments/positions or fallacies. there is a big difference.

[suchmoon]

of course i did, but there's like 40 inclusions on my trust list added over a long period of time. i can't recall every single feedback or the circumstances surrounding them. it would make things a lot simpler if you would simply state your claim ("user X is on your trust list and is engaging in trust abuse"). that's what an honest person would do.

Oh so now it's my fault?

Maybe spend less time talking about the trust system abuse and more time doing something about it. Just a suggestion, not intended as ad hominem.

if you want to point out a case of trust abuse, i'm happy to review it, and perhaps adjust my trust list accordingly if it's warranted. instead, you're just asserting falsities about my actions and piling on ad hominems.

i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild. i already strived to work towards them in my own feedback and trust list before this thread existed.

Just start from the top of your trust list and do what you were supposed to do and claimed to have done. Lying is not cool. Just an observation, not intended as ad hominem.

i didn't suggest that. i'm trying to flesh out a complex issue and i'm asking for guidance about it from people in this thread, given the stated goals in the OP and the current power dynamics in the trust system. you are clearly putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. you're also ignoring these points in the OP, which i agree with, and which leave room for some level of grey area---not nearly as much grey area as the current system, but some nonetheless:

It's not complex. Don't retaliate with red trust and there won't be any gray areas. Problem solved, now you have more free time to review your trust list. Just an advice, not intended as ad hominem.

~ screeching snowflake stuff ~

Oh FFS... get over yourself. I couldn't care less if your feewings got hurt and I reserve the right to respond that way to anyone who weasels out of substantiating their ridiculous claims. This was intended as ad hominem.

[figmentofmyass]

of course i did, but there's like 40 inclusions on my trust list added over a long period of time. i can't recall every single feedback or the circumstances surrounding them. it would make things a lot simpler if you would simply state your claim ("user X is on your trust list and is engaging in trust abuse"). that's what an honest person would do.

Oh so now it's my fault?

sort of, yes. you are accusing me of including people who abuse trust, but you refuse to say who. that's not only childish but a pretty dishonest form of argument.

the irony of you accusing me of not substantiating claims......

Maybe spend less time talking about the trust system abuse and more time doing something about it. Just a suggestion, not intended as ad hominem.

i'm not gonna drop everything i'm doing this second to pour through ~40 accounts' sent feedback to find the one example you cherry picked. just be honest and forthright and tell me who you are accusing. i'm willing to review the situation.

you've only proven that you make accusations against people while simultaneously refusing to identify who you are accusing. go ahead and substantiate your claim: prove that the feedback you quoted even exists, then i will address it.

if not, it's obvious you're just engaging in another character attack. you are clearly engaging in ad hominem by dishonestly asserting that i don't review people before including them on my trust list. you haven't proven that at all. you are telling bold-face lies, not me.

let's try this in reverse. you're including someone who posts unreferenced feedback like this:

This guy is just a total fool. Like an annoying housefly he needs to be swatted out of here.

who left that feedback, and do you think that's proper usage of the trust system?

Just start from the top of your trust list and do what you were supposed to do and claimed to have done. Lying is not cool.

when did you prove that i lied? more of your endless character assassinations.

you're telling me to review every one of my trust inclusions now. that doesn't prove i didn't do so in the past.

It's not complex. Don't retaliate with red trust and there won't be any gray areas. Problem solved, now you have more free time to review your trust list. Just an advice, not intended as ad hominem.

it is complex and you trying to reduce everything to black-and-white just shows 1. how unreasonable you are, and 2. that you are incapable of reading:

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.

i also think theymos made a good point when he said this, which i'm trying to reconcile with my view of how the trust system should be used:

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)

it seems you are trying to attack users and when they respond you act like you are a victim.

i have only pointed out when others (primarily suchmoon) have engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against me rather than respond to my arguments.

personal attacks aren't necessary and aren't conducive to an honest discussion. neither are the sort of intentional fallacies i have been forced to point out over and over. pointing out intellectual dishonesty in self-defense =/= playing the victim, and it certainly doesn't mean i am attacking others. i have had to defend myself nonstop in this thread against attacks on my character. if you perceive that as me attacking other people then i'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

i have made painstaking efforts not to attack other people. i have only argued against other peoples' arguments/positions or fallacies. there is a big difference.

Oh FFS... get over yourself. I couldn't care less if your feewings got hurt and I reserve the right to respond that way to anyone who weasels out of substantiating their ridiculous claims. This was intended as ad hominem.

thanks for deleting all context so you could mischaracterize what i said, as usual.

marlboroza accused me of attacking others and playing the victim, when the exact opposite was true. the above post was a direct response to him, conveying that message. nice try acting as if it was about "my feewings getting hurt" though.

i clearly didn't weasel out of anything. i stood by and defended everything i said. you continuing to assert obvious falsities like this is pathetic.

thanks for derailing the entire thread into personal attacks aimed at me. you've done a good job showcasing what happens when someone tries to criticize the trust system.

[TECSHARE]

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.

So rise above it.  The alternative, if you don't amend the prior tags, is that people might assume you still feel those tags were justified despite not being objective.  Meaning that sometimes subjective tags are appropriate.  This would sadly undermine the argument you are trying to present.

From the way you describe "them", I suspect overhauling the tagging system will not change their attitude or behaviour towards you.  Is that what you're hoping to achieve?  They'd stop persecuting you if they had to tag objectively?  I think you're going to be left disappointed on that front however the tags might be used going forwards.  Same goes for CH/TOAA/etc.

None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.

Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting. What will it acheive? It will make it much harder to leave abusive fake ratings under false pretenses. If they are required to provide evidence, they can't rely on subjective baseless accusations. Manufacturing evidence is much more difficult than simply making accusations without substance.

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.

No coincidence. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. That is why I excluded you, and that is why I put you on that list.

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.

Since you are so focused on your demands I prove my claims, how about you try. Prove to me mass tagging prevents fraud and is not a net deficit. This request is no more unreasonable than your demands that I some how document the internal mental motivations of others some how proving that negative rating spam creates signal noise allowing real cons to hide in it. You are after all advocating for more actions to be taken, I am advocating for less. Why is the default assumption that mass tagging prevents these people who don't do due diligence from fraud just a given? Clearly it is a fact frivolous ratings are used to abuse and result in massive amounts of conflict. You wouldn't argue this point would you?

[suchmoon]

i'm not gonna drop everything i'm doing this second to pour through ~40 accounts' sent feedback to find the one example you cherry picked. just be honest and forthright and tell me who you are accusing. i'm willing to review the situation.

you've only proven that you make accusations against people while simultaneously refusing to identify who you are accusing. go ahead and substantiate your claim: prove that the feedback you quoted even exists, then i will address it.

It's TECSHARE. Do you really think I would make it up? What a fucking tool.

Let's now see the next level of weaseling you will engage in to avoid taking responsibility.

if not, it's obvious you're just engaging in another character attack. you are clearly engaging in ad hominem by dishonestly asserting that i don't review people before including them on my trust list. you haven't proven that at all. you are telling bold-face lies, not me.

Of course you're not reviewing them, not to your proclaimed standards anyway.

let's try this in reverse. you're including someone who posts unreferenced feedback like this:

This guy is just a total fool. Like an annoying housefly he needs to be swatted out of here.

who left that feedback, and do you think that's proper usage of the trust system?

Ah shit, well, throw them out of your guild at once then.

when did you prove that i lied? more of your endless character assassinations.

you're telling me to review every one of my trust inclusions now. that doesn't prove i didn't do so in the past.

Of course you didn't, not to your proclaimed standards anyway.

thanks for derailing the entire thread into personal attacks aimed at me. you've done a good job showcasing what happens when someone tries to criticize the trust system.

Yeah wouldn't it be great if you could have the whole forum to yourself without anyone laughing at your attempts to play a savior of the horribly abused trust system and without having to substantiate any of your claims.

[nutildah]

Now you are just trolling.

Remember who you are talking to, after all... I put them on ignore a while ago and am not looking back.

you and suchmoon may be here to attack people, but i am not.

LOL. That's objectively bullshit. Droning on about a misconception you had about what I meant when I said "the vast minority" which was clarified before you even started questioning me about it... Either you have poor reading comprehension or were mustering an attack, take your pick.

i am perfectly fine with current DT members retaining their status---i'm just hoping we can pressure them towards more objective standards, and that the more abusive ones will be forced to rein in their abuse or be excluded.

Well, lucky for you, that's how the system was designed to operate and is currently operating.

None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.

Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting.

This is all purely projection. You've been given several opportunities to bring evidence to your claims and support your overall points (which you are making, therefore the burden of proof is on you) but instead you chose to engage in more projection, which is one of the reasons why people are coming to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite.

As far as bringing forth evidence that "mass tagging stops scams", all that can be provided is anecdotal evidence where people say they might have invested in x if y had not tagged z, which you might be quick to dismiss as non-evidence anyway.

What is probable, however un-provable, is that career scam busters like Bruno, Vod, cryptodevil and tmfp have likely saved investors hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of dollars over the years, and this includes people arriving at the forum through Google searches and other websites in addition to forum members.

Its true that sometimes an innocent account gets caught up in a "mass tagging" and tagged when it shouldn't have been, but the great thing about the trust system is that the tag can easily be removed if a case is presented as to why it was incorrectly left. I see it happen on occasion. This is why comparisons to Mao and so forth are inaccurate as there is no fixing a murder.

Let's use this opportunity to nail down a few uncertainties:

- If an account leaves a link to malware-laced software, do they deserve a red tag?
- If an account is knowingly supporting an obvious Ponzi scheme, do they deserve a red tag?
- If an account announces an ICO with a plagiarized white paper and fake team members, do they deserve a red tag?

Its OK if you think the answer is "no" to any or all of these -- let's just start with some examples as they are all pretty objective cases of an account having scammer intentions even if there is no proof of them actually being one.

[hacker1001101001]

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.

No coincidence. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. That is why I excluded you, and that is why I put you on that list.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems pretty odd anyways from @tmfp. But I agree with you about the exclusion decision.

[figmentofmyass]

It's TECSHARE. Do you really think I would make it up? What a fucking tool.

i didn't think you made it up. i didn't want to waste hours of my time (tracking down feedback ratings from 2015!) for the sake of substantiating your claim.

Let's now see the next level of weaseling you will engage in to avoid taking responsibility.

do 2 ratings from 5 years ago imply that he is regularly ignoring the standards? serious question.

anyway, i've already been trying to discuss this specific issue over and over:

i'm trying to flesh out a complex issue and i'm asking for guidance about it from people in this thread, given the stated goals in the OP and the current power dynamics in the trust system. you are clearly putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. you're also ignoring these points in the OP, which i agree with, and which leave room for some level of grey area---not nearly as much grey area as the current system, but some nonetheless:

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.

i also think theymos made a good point when he said this, which i'm trying to reconcile with my view of how the trust system should be used:

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)

you keep straw manning my position to be completely inflexible and black-and-white. i've shown that it's anything but.

i said i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild and that i strive to work towards them. those principles, as stated above, say that accusations without documentation should be minimal (=/= non-existent), and that regular offenders should be excluded.

let's try this in reverse. you're including someone who posts unreferenced feedback like this:

This guy is just a total fool. Like an annoying housefly he needs to be swatted out of here.

who left that feedback, and do you think that's proper usage of the trust system?

Ah shit, well, throw them out of your guild at once then.

so you can hold me to completely faultless/impeccable standards re trust inclusions (which i actually never agreed to---see above), but you don't care in the slightest about trust abuse in your own inclusions?