The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[TECSHARE]

Nigeria has a lot of scammers right? If I nuked Nigeria I would objectively be "fighting scammers" now wouldn't I?

Juvenile strawman rhetoric.

"Fighting scammers" is easy if you have little to no concern about innocents.

That's precisely the reason for doing it, "a concern for innocents".

Yes yes, I am sure your evidence free suspicion is above reproach  

What "evidence free" suspicion?
Red trust should be reference linked to the reasoning behind it.

and you never ever catch innocent people up in your OCD dragnet

More flowery strawman bullshit from the king of OCD.

... not that anyone is watching the watchers.

The whole forum watches.
Anyone who wants to object to my posts or my feedback is more than welcome to dispute them, show me where I'm wrong.

tecshare's reasoning for exclusion of forum member tmfp?

I have no interst in being a poster child in this nonsense, but it's simple: retaliation for my exclusion of him. He now wants his anti gang gang to copy it.
Pick thru his tedious narrative above for his changing "reasons" for it.

Put me on your fucking blacklist, accuse me of shit that I don't do: standard right wing American control bullshit masquerading as being "in the public interest".

It is not at all a straw man. It is called an metaphor. A metaphor designed to point out that indiscriminate attacks can be quite effective at disabling a target if you disregard innocents effected. That doesn't make indiscriminate attacks desirable. Scambusters are the A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world.

Yeah, you claim that is all you are concerned for. Maybe your intent is even legitimate. Unfortunately your instincts and suspicions are not infallible, and most forum cops here are more interested in feeling effective than being effective. Real life police use that as a defense too. They still regularly rob and murder people in the name of "defending innocents". Lack of accountability is the only thing that allows these abuses to continue.

Reasoning =/= Evidence

If the whole forum watches, what do we need full time forum cops for digging through everyone's shit looking for excuses to condemn them to raise their own reputation? Sure plenty of people are watching, how many people are willing or able to challenge incorrect or abusive ratings? The VAST majority of grievances are just immediately and summarily dismissed as scammers crying because they "got their comeuppance". Anyone that has a reputation to stand on, that reputation is then leveraged against them to silence them. Just look at this thread for plenty of examples of the mouth frothing levels of attacks that result any time anyone suggests these people might be held to higher standards.

Politics now? Are you another person with hidden motives using forum issues as a method to attack me for my political opinions like several of the others here because they can't manage a logical debate on the subject? Maybe you want to project some more, accuse me of projecting, then deny you accused me all in the same breath? You can't even account for yourself let alone others.





I just thought I would post yet another example of there never being anything good enough for those wanting to attack:

Last of the V8s   2020-02-25   Reference   "Didn't quite go overboard for once"

Did I do the right thing or not? If so why exactly are you attacking me for it by leaving these retarded and hectoring ratings? This is why I never give an inch to these people, because even when I make a correction, all they ever focus on is the fact that something was wrong at one point. There is no credit given for taking correct actions, only more punitive actions. Why the fuck would I even acknowledge you people with your petty nit picking when all you offer is disincentive?

[1715129179]

1715129179

[1715129179]

1715129179

[1715129179]

1715129179

[1715129179]

1715129179

[suchmoon]

I just thought I would post yet another example of there never being anything good enough for those wanting to attack:

Last of the V8s   2020-02-25   Reference   "Didn't quite go overboard for once"

What's wrong with that one? It's a neutral rating, phrased somewhat positively, doesn't violate your "standards".

[TECSHARE]

I just thought I would post yet another example of there never being anything good enough for those wanting to attack:

Last of the V8s   2020-02-25   Reference   "Didn't quite go overboard for once"

What's wrong with that one? It's a neutral rating, phrased somewhat positively, doesn't violate your "standards".

The fact it is a rating is not the issue, it is the obvious conflict in intent. Like I said, if I did something right here, why exactly was this necessary? "Phrased somewhat positively" lol ok. It is just more evidence that all you people know how to do is be punitive, and there is never any credit for positive correction, and it is only leveraged to make excuses for more hectoring and punitive actions. Then you all pretend to wonder why I tell all you clowns to go fuck yourselves.

[suchmoon]

The fact it is a rating is not the issue, it is the obvious conflict in intent. Like I said, if I did something right here, why exactly was this necessary? "Phrased somewhat positively" lol ok. It is just more evidence that all you people know how to do is be punitive, and there is never any credit for positive correction, and it is only leveraged to make excuses for more hectoring and punitive actions. Then you all pretend to wonder why I tell all you clowns to go fuck yourselves.

That doesn't answer my question at all. What's wrong with that rating? Are we now at the point where we're bitching about soft-positive neutral ratings?

[TECSHARE]

That doesn't answer my question at all. What's wrong with that rating? Are we now at the point where we're bitching about soft-positive neutral ratings?

I absolutely answered your question, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. I am not suggesting anything be done about the rating, but the fact it was left is evidence of the fact that there is no redemption with people like you, and any corrections made are just leveraged to apply more punitive action, much like when I removed iCEBREAKER from the list in the OP.

[suchmoon]

That doesn't answer my question at all. What's wrong with that rating? Are we now at the point where we're bitching about soft-positive neutral ratings?

I absolutely answered your question, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. I am not suggesting anything be done about the rating, but the fact it was left is evidence of the fact that there is no redemption with people like you, and any corrections made are just leveraged to apply more punitive action.

No, you didn't. You just keep repeating that it's "punitive" (even stretching that claim to a "fact") without explaining what's the punishment. Would it be punitive if it was positive, same words?

[marlboroza]

Scambusters are the A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world.

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

hacker1001101001

But, the extent of such abuse is to were you are referring to the good deeds of there scam busting, but on other hands, they don't even think twice to tear apart the repo of another scam buster like me. One can surely see these goods deeds really doesn't outweigh the damage caused on another side.

I am so confused, did you just suggest everyone to include "A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world" to their trust lists  

Now this is very interesting, seems account poochpocket is tagged as an alt of hacker:



I would usually ask for proofs, but according to OP and some of his suggested trust inclusions and mutual agreement that it is ok to have such tag as long as "it depends" and/or "is lower than some number" or "it's ok", I guess it is "it's ok" then.

[tmfp]

Put me on your fucking blacklist, accuse me of shit that I don't do: standard right wing American control bullshit masquerading as being "in the public interest".

Politics now? Are you another person with hidden motives using forum issues as a method to attack me for my political opinions

Yes, I thought that reference would push your Agenda Button.
Maybe I'm a commie?

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of Default Trust?"

Scambusters are the A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world.

Classy.

It really should be bigger, and in a suitable font. Look cool on your bowling shirt.

To prospective members of the anti-gang gang, this is what your anti-leader leader decrees.
Are you cool with that?

[suchmoon]

I am so confused, did you just suggest everyone to include "A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world" to their trust lists  

I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding. He probably meant that scambusters are "aides". Except tmfp obviously, who must be a criminal of some sort, how dare he exclude TECSHARE.

[TECSHARE]

No, you didn't. You just keep repeating that it's "punitive" (even stretching that claim to a "fact") without explaining what's the punishment. Would it be punitive if it was positive, same words?

I did in fact, you are just insisting that you get to reinterpret my words how you prefer to interpret them and then expect me to defend your interpretation, not what I actually said. This is common practice for you.

Synonyms for punitive

    disciplinary
    penal
    punishing
    retaliatory
    vindictive
    punitory
    castigating
    correctional
    in reprisal
    in retaliation
    retaliative
    revengeful

That word has more than one definition, I put the applicable descriptors in bold to make it easier for you. If it was positive it wouldn't be punitive by definition.

I am so confused, did you just suggest everyone to include "A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world" to their trust lists 

I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding. He probably meant that scambusters are "aides". Except tmfp obviously, who must be a criminal of some sort, how dare he exclude TECSHARE.

When did I call him a criminal exactly? Please quote. More disingenuous projection for hyperbolic effect.

Put me on your fucking blacklist, accuse me of shit that I don't do: standard right wing American control bullshit masquerading as being "in the public interest".

Politics now? Are you another person with hidden motives using forum issues as a method to attack me for my political opinions

Yes, I thought that reference would push your Agenda Button.
Maybe I'm a commie?

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of Default Trust?"

Scambusters are the A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world.

Classy.

It really should be bigger, and in a suitable font. Look cool on your bowling shirt.

To prospective members of the anti-gang gang, this is what your anti-leader leader decrees.
Are you cool with that?

Ah I see, you bring up politics and I am the one pushing a political agenda. You should get a part time job at a movie theater, at least there you would get paid for all that projecting you are doing. I am not a leader of anything. I am just a person setting an example by standing up to a collection of little people who are dependent on the ability to abuse others to maintain their own perception of self worth.

[suchmoon]

That word has more than one definition, I put the applicable descriptors in bold to make it easier for you. If it was positive it wouldn't be punitive by definition.

Synonyms are not definitions or descriptors. Neutral by definition is impartial but since you're redefining it as punitive will you review your own neutral ratings?

[TECSHARE]

That word has more than one definition, I put the applicable descriptors in bold to make it easier for you. If it was positive it wouldn't be punitive by definition.

Synonyms are not definitions or descriptors. Neutral by definition is impartial but since you're redefining it as punitive will you review your own neutral ratings?

Thanks for the demonstration of exactly how hard you will work to stray from the point of a subject and argue as many peripheral issues as possible.

[suchmoon]

Thanks for the demonstration of exactly how hard you will work to stray from the point of a subject and argue as many peripheral issues as possible.

So the subject is no longer the punitive nature of a neutral rating? Or is it only punitive when you receive it but not when you send it? Please elaborate.

[truth or dare]

Put me on your fucking blacklist, accuse me of shit that I don't do: standard right wing American control bullshit masquerading as being "in the public interest".

Politics now? Are you another person with hidden motives using forum issues as a method to attack me for my political opinions

Yes, I thought that reference would push your Agenda Button.
Maybe I'm a commie?

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of Default Trust?"

Scambusters are the A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world.

Classy.

It really should be bigger, and in a suitable font. Look cool on your bowling shirt.

To prospective members of the anti-gang gang, this is what your anti-leader leader decrees.
Are you cool with that?

You seem to be misrepresenting this guild as anti gang. You are wrong.

Objective, transparent, independently verifiable standards are anti collusion. They will ensure accurate, credible and valuable warnings. They will protect free speech and ensure the fair and equal treatment of all members.

Stop joining with suchmoon, marlboroza and other members that are attempting to prevent this undeniable and irrefutable upgrade taking place.

I will not speculate on your motives. Suchmoon appears to need no motive. His only concern appears to be looking smart, and being snarky and sarcastic. He seems to have no issue moving to an objective standard and has run away from presenting a credible argument to retain the subjective abused tagging system. Besides motives are unimportant.

In your case I am sure that if you agree to work within the objective standards the guild membership requires you can be added to the inclusions list. If you wish to retain the subjective tagging system and can provide no argument that stands up to scrutiny then clearly you must be excluded from the guild. Make a choice.

Same for every other member on the forum. Everyone will be treated equally.  

Don't appear to be seeking to retain the subjective abused tagging system if your only real gripe is being excluded from the guild.

This guild will certainly expand as word spreads to push for what is fair treatment for all members. I think those determined to retain subjective tagging for their own personal profit Wil be the long term losers here.

Say you want to be part of the guild and will abide by the objective standards or stop worrying you are not in the guilds inclusion list.  

Just enjoy your remaining days where subjective abusive tagging is permitted in peace. Those days are going to end.

[TECSHARE]

Thanks for the demonstration of exactly how hard you will work to stray from the point of a subject and argue as many peripheral issues as possible.

So the subject is no longer the punitive nature of a neutral rating? Or is it only punitive when you receive it but not when you send it? Please elaborate.

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you will manufacture a way to slide the topic regardless.

[allahabadi]

Since you have pointed me to this thread; I thought I wud present my views on objectivity here as well.

- let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties.

To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity.

I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity.

Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective).
-

#peace

[tmfp]

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

[truth or dare]

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

You seem to be letting personal disputes cloud your judgement. If you believe you can present a robust argument to retain subjective tagging then simply produce it.

You can not defer to theymos's unilateral single entity design and instructions when it suits you ( usually as a defense of faux rebuttal or where any other robust argument evadeds you all ). Then claim all of this abuse and subjectivity is required to ensure no single entity decides or dictates the way things are here.

Where the optimal conditions are robustly defined by the adoption of transparent objective standards that ensure the equal treatment of all members. Then the empty and spurious claims of motivation, intent, insincerity or otherwise irrelevant squeals of the defeated and broken can be sensibly ignored.

If people don't wish to uphold objective standards that are optimal for the forum,then they don't need to join the guild.

Simple.

The point of objective standards is to ensure there is no bosses or gangs. Everone is treated equally.

[TECSHARE]

Since you have pointed me to this thread; I thought I wud present my views on objectivity here as well.

- let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties.

To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity.

I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity.

Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective).
-

#peace

Humans have trouble being objective. If you actually bothered reading the thread you would see I am advocating for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE being presented exactly for this reason. You complain about abusive trust ratings but still have that user in your trust list. Based on this OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, you aren't exactly one to be giving advice and analysis on the trust system.

[suchmoon]

still have that user in your trust list

You're wrong.