The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[marlboroza]

@OP just to let you know that some Objective Standards Guild members don't agree with you nor this guild's standards at all:

Bro, I see you are not in DT1 anymore, its just because you removed your trust list.

The criteria is you should have a costume trust list to be included in DT1

Your feedbacks seems like a very good warning for some community members to avoid spams and you deserve a DT1 position I think. Still if you don't want to be there please at least keep up with a DT2 position. It would help large number of newbies to get your important posted feedbacks noticed which would avoid spam.

It could cause a jail-brake experience to many scammer for sure.

Please let us know why are you doing this bud?

At least that is what they said...

[truth or dare]

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed?

Exclusion exposed? What exactly are you taking credit for? What did you expose?

You already have added me to your distrust list and likewise I have you on my distrust list. There is nothing retaliatory about it. In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list. The fact is I saw your trash posting several times over several days beforehand but in the middle of that line of trash posting were the occasional post that was far sensible and relevant than you deserved credit for so was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately your conduct left me with no choice so I added you to my distrust list.

In that thread you allude to (where you became emotionally unstable because I added you to my distrust list) nobody cared about the trash you were spouting then and nobody is interested in this guild trash either.

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed? There seems to be a repeating theme of people who get called out attacking my person rather than addressing any of the issues. Could it be they have no argument to stand on, therefore personal attacks are the only remaining option?

There is nothing to address. There are no issues to address here. You have created a thread in the hope to revel in a fake sense of self-importance. Nobody cares about this guild trash you are trying to cook up except your friends from the local language board and a few others that post for the sake of it or to feel the need to stay relevant.

You know full and well that theymos will not be giving you the time of day regarding this thread which was created for your own self-indulgence and maybe if it was a set of guidelines from a user (or set of users) considered trustworthy and likeable by general consensus then users would have flocked to co-operate.





So this image shows the real reason you created all this pathetic little drama?

Nobody cares about your ridiculously overinflated sense of self-importance or your equally pathetic ego. You might find a few members of the local language board and a couple of wannabe that have a grudge against most DTs because they were tagged after their little games were exposed therefore they follow you around but they are almost mentally twisted as you, they will dump you the moment they feel they no longer have any use for you.

You still have time, kindly seek medical advice before your case is too far gone for medical experts to help address your narcissistic over-exuberance and fix your mental imbalance issues. Thank you.

Stop crying out in desperation that TS has mental illness.
It only clearly demonstrated that you are unable to mount a rebuttal to the central points he is making.

* you and every other member have failed to present an argument that would stand up to scrutiny not to adopt the guilds objective standards

That is a huge fail right there for you all.

* you are claiming or rather speculating that there are ulterior motives behind the lists other than the best possible selections TS was initially aware of. It could be there is no ulterior motive at all. If there were it would really not make any difference because their behavior would be the same as any other members in those lists of they wished to remain there.

You Jolly Good have been exposed for double standards a free times. You're simply a virtue signaling weasel.  You are often punishing scams and their facilitators / supporters when they pose no threat to you.

I have noticed you shrink away from DT members or popular members who support / facilitate the same scams.

That is untrustworthy and you should probably not be permitted to join the guild unless you state categorically that you intend on changing your cowardly behavior.

Transparent objective standards will demand consistency not just punishing those you feel pose no threat to you.

Doomad is speculating on TS motives for the lists. I don't think he's correct, but he is correct about the other part, because he is now repeating what I have been saying here. That it would be better to let people's actions and initial verbal support for the move to transparent objective standards, be sufficient to make the inclusions.

The lists are only suggestions, and will need to be dynamic,  I have little faith that all those that would try to keep to the objective standards could resist going running to red tags, as soon as you upset them. Either by debunking their feeble arguments or pointing out  with credible corroborating evidence that they are not real enthusiasts,  and just here to take what they can get.

The lists are suggestions they are a starting point it will only be possible to form solid lists as members abuse the guilds principles or refuse to rectify red tags that are not credible, accurate warnings of scamming, attempting to scam or setting up a scam.

Sorry anything else generates the insoluble problems that are clearly dangerous and crush free speech

Read, understand, accept.  

Stop crying about the lists and the possible motives behind them. Those that are on the includes list will be moved to the excludes if they don't abide by the transparent objective standards and those on the excludes can be put on the includes once they state they will abide by the transparent objective standards and their actions demonstrate they are serious.

Those not wishing to join the guild but can not present any credible argument for retaining the subjective red tags are eating their time and looking very foolish.

* say you will join the guild

* present a credible argument that stands up to scrutiny which demonstrates transparent objective standards that ensure credible, accurate, and useful warnings regarding scammers, those trying to scam or setting up a scam. Whilst protecting free speech and ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all members and solving all of the other insoluble problems subjective tagging generates... is all net negative

* just admit you don't want to lose you clear advantages which happen to be most of the insoluble problems that subjective tagging generates. You have no interest in ensuring free speech and fair and equal treatment of all members do you

[TECSHARE]

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed?

Exclusion exposed? What exactly are you taking credit for? What did you expose?

You already have added me to your distrust list and likewise I have you on my distrust list. There is nothing retaliatory about it. In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list. The fact is I saw your trash posting several times over several days beforehand but in the middle of that line of trash posting were the occasional post that was far sensible and relevant than you deserved credit for so was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately your conduct left me with no choice so I added you to my distrust list.

In that thread you allude to (where you became emotionally unstable because I added you to my distrust list) nobody cared about the trash you were spouting then and nobody is interested in this guild trash either.

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed? There seems to be a repeating theme of people who get called out attacking my person rather than addressing any of the issues. Could it be they have no argument to stand on, therefore personal attacks are the only remaining option?

There is nothing to address. There are no issues to address here. You have created a thread in the hope to revel in a fake sense of self-importance. Nobody cares about this guild trash you are trying to cook up except your friends from the local language board and a few others that post for the sake of it or to feel the need to stay relevant.

You know full and well that theymos will not be giving you the time of day regarding this thread which was created for your own self-indulgence and maybe if it was a set of guidelines from a user (or set of users) considered trustworthy and likeable by general consensus then users would have flocked to co-operate.


[img ]https://i.postimg.cc/c1XcnXwW/tc1-Copy.png[/img]


So this image shows the real reason you created all this pathetic little drama?

Nobody cares about your ridiculously overinflated sense of self-importance or your equally pathetic ego. You might find a few members of the local language board and a couple of wannabe that have a grudge against most DTs because they were tagged after their little games were exposed therefore they follow you around but they are almost mentally twisted as you, they will dump you the moment they feel they no longer have any use for you.

You still have time, kindly seek medical advice before your case is too far gone for medical experts to help address your narcissistic over-exuberance and fix your mental imbalance issues. Thank you.

Nutilduhh was trying to cast my exclusion of you as retaliatory, but they didn't realize I was the first to exclude you, then you excluded me very shortly after. Of course when I do this it is "retaliation" and is a violation, when anyone else does it it was for "reasons" and is perfectly acceptable. I exposed the fact that you in fact were the one to reciprocate the exclusion. My conduct? You mean the fact that I excluded you right?

For something that no one cares about, you seem to be trying pretty hard to convince me of this.

"In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list."

Begging? You mean this?

The trust system should not be used as a wide net shotgunning device as it is not only ineffective, counterproductive, but serves to allow actual con artists to hide in the noise. The standard of "promoting a known scam" is essentially guilt via association and far too arbitrary.

I just want to make a note here that JollyGood excluded me today after I excluded him. Those of you who have accused me of trust system manipulation and retaliation for doing the same feel free to demonstrate holding to your principles by excluding him.

I am pretty sure that is the only time I brought up your exclusion of me, feel free to prove me wrong with a quote. I don't see any begging or "emotional instability" there, just pointing out more double standards.

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

Another good user falls victim to harassment and abuse for doing nothing more than speaking their mind.

I mean... that's certainly one interpretation.  Another could be that users simply don't want to take your recommendations on who they should or shouldn't trust.  If you had simply left it at the part where you said anyone could opt in as long as they follow the tenets and stopped there, perhaps people may have been more receptive to the idea.  Each member could then form their own conclusions on who is and isn't following the guidelines and adjust their trust list accordingly.
 
But you had to go and "suggest" people exclude the users you don't personally trust.  Then you act surprised or indignant when people infer that it looks like you're trying to reshape the trust system in a way that just so happens to cut out all the people you don't like.  

I did ask:

How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?  

And don't recall seeing it answered in your subsequent replies.  So I can only conclude you don't actually want those particular users to be more objective, you just want to reduce the impact of their tags by encouraging other users to distrust them.  I suppose you'll reply with more yet more indignation and claim that I'm being disingenuous for pointing out that funny little coincidence, but that's honestly how it looks.

Who said people had to follow my suggestions? So what is your point here? That I shouldn't be free to make suggestions for inclusions and exclusions based on my judgement of how the users are using the trust system? Isn't that exactly what custom trust lists are for, and something literally every person who uses them does? This is what I am talking about, the simple fact that I use these systems or have any voice in them whatsoever is presented as some kind of illicit behavior. I am not doing anything different than anyone else using the system, you people are just terrified that some one has opinions that don't align with your own, and others might agree, so you need to characterize me as having some kind of ulterior motives.

How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?  

It doesn't necessarily, at least not directly anyway. It does however expose their abuse of the trust system, promotes awareness of their behavior, and is a countering force to their abuse by building a coalition of people to remove the authority under the system they are abusing by excluding abusive users. The end goal being that their behavior results in exclusions which either diminishes their ability to use this force within the system, or motivates them to leave more accurate ratings. Is that not the whole point of everyone being able to "vote" using their own custom trust lists, or is this another example of me being up to no good any time I use the trust system as it was designed to be used?

This sounds a lot like your previous circular logic, only rephrased:

You seem to be straying from any logical argument now and just projecting at this point.

1)  User doesn't like the tags they have been given by other users
2)  User proposes changes to the way tags are handed out
3)  User benefits if/when they are no longer tagged in a manner they don't approve of

Seems to follow logically to me.  Are you saying that doesn't sound self-serving?

1) I hit you in the face for no reason.
2) You propose I stop hitting you in the face.
3) You benefit from not being hit in the face.

Is your proposal self serving? I would say so. Is that wrong or dishonest? Seems like a stretch at best. In summary you are literally using the fact that I am being attacked to discredit my objections to it. You know what that is called? Circular logic.

[bones261]

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

Well, it appears that you have been drafted by Tecshare. However, if you want to take a mental health break from this bickering, I totally understand. I recently took a break for quite a few months. However, I'm now back and revitalized. Fortunately for you, your main patron, Tecshare, is currently on the shit list of the powers that be. Sentiment can change, however. We shall see.

[JollyGood]

@TECSHARE - you posted a wall of illegible tripe. Make your trash post wall smaller other I will continue to skip past them

@truth or dare - you posted a wall of illegible tripe. Make your trash post wall smaller other I will continue to skip past them

The primary criteria for being on the TECSHARE shitlist is that they have TS excluded, mutual exclusions are bolded:

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~smoothie
~BitcoinEXpress
~Vod
~Foxpup
~ibminer
~TMAN
~Lauda
~Timelord2067
~TheNewAnon135246
~mindrust
~cryptodevil
~suchmoon
~owlcatz
~nutildah
~tmfp
~yahoo62278
~Last of the V8s
~Lutpin
~TwitchySeal
~bob123
~marlboroza
~blurryeyed
~nullius
~JollyGood
~mosprognoz
~DireWolfM14

If you exclude TS, you have bad judgment, and therefore can't have objective standards.

Exactly. He has to be centre of the universe and everybody must bow down to him or else.....

Only a complete and utter imbecile would try to make himself centre of the universe where everything revolves around him. In his petty little mind what he says must happen and what he states must be adhered to.

[bones261]

Exactly. He has to be centre of the universe and everybody must bow down to him or else.....

Only a complete and utter imbecile would try to make himself centre of the universe where everything revolves around him. In his petty little mind what he says must happen and what he states must be adhered to.

You are just upset because you missed being able to buy his sole. A true relic. However, maybe you can figure out who the buyer was and obtain it from them for a bazoogle BTC. I heard that it has special powers. If you take a huge whiff, you will be granted infallibility for 24 hours.

[TECSHARE]

@TECSHARE - you posted a wall of illegible tripe. Make your trash post wall smaller other I will continue to skip past them

...

If you exclude TS, you have bad judgment, and therefore can't have objective standards.

Exactly. He has to be centre of the universe and everybody must bow down to him or else.....

Only a complete and utter imbecile would try to make himself centre of the universe where everything revolves around him. In his petty little mind what he says must happen and what he states must be adhered to.

I am sorry if 2 small paragraphs addressed to you is a difficult read for you. It is about half as long as what I was replying to, perhaps you are seeing your own quote and adding it to "the wall". It is a rather convenient excuse for you to avoid any retort though isn't it?

Having a say in the trust system does not equal "the universe revolving around me", but a good demonstration of more character attacks while you avoid addressing any of the topics at hand as usual on your part.

[JollyGood]

Maybe bottling the whiff and selling it for its medicinal purposes and special powers would have been far more conducive so far as pocketing money and maximising user benefit was concerned.

I am sure many members would happily endure the headache induced by the whiff if it gave them 24 hours worth of infallibility but count me out please   

You are just upset because you missed being able to buy his sole. A true relic. However, maybe you can figure out who the buyer was and obtain it from them for a bazoogle BTC. I heard that it has special powers. If you take a huge whiff, you will be granted infallibility for 24 hours.

[sirazimuth]

Techy saved me the trouble of making these trust thingy lists albeit I don't bother with them.
But if I did, I'd just use his suggested exclusion list land make them my inclusions, and his suggested inclusion list, vice versa  .

easy peasy

[bones261]

Techy saved me the trouble of making these trust thingy lists albeit I don't bother with them.
But if I did, I'd just use his suggested exclusion list land make them my inclusions, and his suggested inclusion list, vice versa  .

easy peasy

I'm not certain that would be a good strategy because there are some people on Tecshare's list that I actually agree with.

Code:

qwk
Lesbian Cow
LoyceV
DdmrDdmr

There may be others on the list that I would agree should be on my list, but I don't know enough about them.

[LoyceV]

Techy saved me the trouble of making these trust thingy lists albeit I don't bother with them.

Well, you should! If interested, have a look at LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system, then make your own Trust list.
For the Trust system to decentralize, it's especially important that the users who "don't bother with them" create their own Trust list too.

[truth or dare]

Maybe bottling the whiff and selling it for its medicinal purposes and special powers would have been far more conducive so far as pocketing money and maximising user benefit was concerned.

I am sure many members would happily endure the headache induced by the whiff if it gave them 24 hours worth of infallibility but count me out please   

You are just upset because you missed being able to buy his sole. A true relic. However, maybe you can figure out who the buyer was and obtain it from them for a bazoogle BTC. I heard that it has special powers. If you take a huge whiff, you will be granted infallibility for 24 hours.

Try to focus on these key points


* say you will join the guild

* present a credible argument that stands up to scrutiny which demonstrates transparent objective standards that ensure credible, accurate, and useful warnings regarding scammers, those trying to scam or setting up a scam. Whilst protecting free speech and ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all members and solving all of the other insoluble problems subjective tagging generates... is all net negative

* just admit you don't want to lose you clear advantages which happen to be most of the insoluble problems that subjective tagging generates. You have no interest in ensuring free speech and fair and equal treatment of all members do you


Stop being such a coward and double standards weasel.

Pretend scamHunter and pretent bitcoin enthusiast.
Chipmixer quick let him on. Perfect candidate to sponsor just like the other shit posting fake scam hunters that look the other way when DT members facilitate and work with scams.

let me post those points again so you don't miss them


* say you will join the guild

* present a credible argument that stands up to scrutiny which demonstrates transparent objective standards that ensure credible, accurate, and useful warnings regarding scammers, those trying to scam or setting up a scam. Whilst protecting free speech and ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all members and solving all of the other insoluble problems subjective tagging generates... is all net negative

* just admit you don't want to lose you clear advantages which happen to be most of the insoluble problems that subjective tagging generates. You have no interest in ensuring free speech and fair and equal treatment of all members do you

[JollyGood]

 

Judging by the way a particular member of the local language board spat his dummy out and threw a huge tantrum as he was tagged by many DT, it makes no surprise to see you spout trash like his

Pretend scamHunter and pretent bitcoin enthusiast.
Chipmixer quick let him on. Perfect candidate to sponsor just like the other shit posting fake scam hunters that look the other way when DT members facilitate and work with scams.

[truth or dare]

Judging by the way a particular member of the local language board spat his dummy out and threw a huge tantrum as he was tagged by many DT, it makes no surprise to see you spout trash like his

Pretend scamHunter and pretent bitcoin enthusiast.
Chipmixer quick let him on. Perfect candidate to sponsor just like the other shit posting fake scam hunters that look the other way when DT members facilitate and work with scams.

I have no interest in your diversions from the core points denoted by the *

Of course you missed those.

Anyone can investigate for themselves, how you only sought to punish juniors and those you reasoned could not damage your sig opportunities for being involved with yobit. That is clear and I note was mentioned to you at the time.

Also what went down as detailed here in this post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229023.0

Demonstrates even those working to facilitate scama and scammers yourself bust and are sure about. You will not seek to punish them if they happen to be fellow DT like mosprognoz and lauda.

I have no idea what you are trying to express about local boards Mr cowardly double standards Sig spammer.

Now seek those* and answer them. Stop avoiding them like a coward.

[JollyGood]

That design would be an excellent t-shirt for that imbecile. What an absolutely disgusting thing for anybody with any morals to say. Only those with a disgusting take on life would say anything so nasty such as what he said about AIDS.

At least those sock-puppets and deluded alt-accounts that continue to follow him know what their antithesis of a leader stands for yet they continue to feed his already overinflated ego

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?

[truth or dare]

That design would be an excellent t-shirt for that imbecile. What an absolutely disgusting thing for anybody with any morals to say. Only those with a disgusting take on life would say anything so nasty such as what he said about AIDS.

At least those sock-puppets and deluded alt-accounts that continue to follow him know what their antithesis of a leader stands for yet they continue to feed his already overinflated ego

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?

This gets even more strange. Now to avoid debating the core principles in relation to transparent objective standards creating the optimal forum environment, we will claim analogies using certain virus or disease are not allowed.

The analogy is rather an okay one, aids or hiv, it does not really matter.

If we imagine the trust system is "supposed" to be the forums immunity against scammers. It ensures the safety of healthy honest members.

It is quite simple to understand how this immunity has been broken down and compromised so that the immune system is attacking non scamming members whilst being leveraged to protect at times multiple viruses and diseases from impacting negatively on one another and preventing any part of the healthy immune system to recover and protect healthy members.

"double standards scam hunters" " scheming cunning merit sources " and " self elected default trust " " dirty Sig campaign managers" and crazy self destruction " governance designs"

That's like AIDS, cancer, leprosy, ebola, bubonic plague, and more. I don't think AIDS is sufficiently dangerous if we want an accurate analogy.

Sorry,  I do support the core principles and going with transparent objective standards. I don't fully support this AIDS analogy. It shows that TS has underestimated the seriousness of the onslaught bitcoin talk is under.

[TECSHARE]

Nutilduhh was trying to cast my exclusion of you as retaliatory, but they didn't realize I was the first to exclude you, then you excluded me very shortly after.

No, that's not what I said. You are trying to shoehorn my words into a point you deem favorable to yourself (which is not really, anyway). Besides, pre-emptively excluding 2 users out 21 who excluded you doesn't seem like something to brag about.

This whole thing is a laughable exercise proving just how self-centered and non-objective your judgment actually is. You basically feel that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong, which is something I've known about you for quite some time.

Have fun developing your anti-gang. Don't count on recruitment to pick up until you can figure out a way to stop being objectively full of shit, though.

Yes Nuttillduuh, you certainly don't have your own history of suspect activity and making baseless accusations against me. I am sure you weren't suggesting I excluded him for retaliatory reasons at all.

"Pre-emptively" interesting choice of words... that implies he was going to exclude me... and that I did it before he could do it to me first, as opposed to simply not agreeing with his use of the trust system. You were just saying something about not accusing me of excluding him in retaliation?


"You basically feel that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong, which is something I've known about you for quite some time. "

A lot to unpack in that statement.

-I disagree with you
-You think I must be wrong
-You have been assured of your conclusion for a long time

No projection here.

All I am advocating for is a standard of evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws before leaving negative ratings. The coordinated attacks on me via the trust system for doing nothing more than advocating for this demonstrates why this change is needed very clearly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213992.msg53936512#msg53936512
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg53925898#msg53925898
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.0;all


Resolved:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225907.0

What has changed all of a sudden that all of these users known for their abuse of the trust system feel the need to tag me in a very short period of time? Right, me being vocal about their abuse of the trust system. How exactly is this system supposed to operate if criticism of abuse is allowed to be met with more abuse? It won't, and it will eventually become a tool for con artists to suppress reporting of their crimes, if it isn't already.

[xolxol]

i excluded these people a long time ago,anyone who supports lauda the gang period.

[marlboroza]

Topic seems quiet lately  

Core tenets:

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

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

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

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


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

This is trust abuse according to rules of this guild, not to mention some ratings are real trust abuse (note: I didn't check references of unmarked negative trust ratings)

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

Do correct thing @TECSHARE and thank you for this topic.

[JollyGood]

I do not see people lining up to join the so-called guild. Many can see this as another attempt at attention seeking from someone who just cannot help but seem to think they are centre of the universe. If there was any merit in this so-called guild all users would be lining up to sign up to it.

Topic seems quiet lately