The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia

[nullius]

Just passing through.  Don’t expect for me to follow up on a thread that’s not worth my time.  I simply thought that I should drop a note that, quelle surprise, TEChSHARE and his merry crew do not objectively apply theymos’ suggested standard for use of the trust system:

Topic: #28719 “jbreher” is a liar
Deleted per thread local rule (thread moderation archive, Loyce’s archive):

I am an hard core BTC supporter, but yet though I don't think someone should be tagged for showing the technical barriers and advantages between two crypto currencies here. jbreher doesn't even seem to say that BCH is BTC which would still be a considerable deception but it's not the case.

You merely red trust users to crush there speech, you even exist here for the same as reflected in the effortful but baseless OP indicating no real danger of trading with jbreher in all. This probably shows your lapse in judgement and inability to be an objective DT.

That is why he is not on DT 1 or 2 any more. He has made his own ratings largely irrelevant with this kind of behavior. I get the distinct impression this account is either acting in coordination with, or is under the direct control of other well known trust system abusers here.

OP on that thread:

Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin.

I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.

Why ?
I ask with no snark or ill-intention.

Because it is purely and simply Bitcoin. In the form that I believe Satoshi intended.

[...]

If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.

Earlier in thread OP:

Local rules:  [...]  TEChSHARE, “truth or dare”, “savetheFORUM”, et al. shall be deleted on sight (but with archives noted in reserved posts).

The Bitch Latin Guild:  Pretentious whiners unite in self-serving, recursively descending hypocrisy!


While I’m at it—what?  As of the sixteenth page of this thread, nobody bothered to point out that TEChSHARE is, objectively judged, a pretentious twit who knows no more about Latin than he does about the English words “objective” and “standards”?  Educational standards are falling.

TEChSHARE’s actual standard:

A Salutary Lesson from the
Gang of Philological Pedants
Membership: 1

Nor you knew Latin (I suppose).

Though you were not addressing me, I should point out that, although I just said that I do not know Latin (according to my own standards, or any reasonable standards of scholarship), I may damn myself with faint praise by observing that I know more Latin than some do.

BRING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BACK TO BITCOINTALK - TESTIMONIUM LIBERTATUM IUSTITIA

That is worse than dog Latin:  It is bitch Latin.  It exemplifies the folly of mashing together words found in an English-Latin dictionary, without having even the slightest clue about Latin grammar.

testimonium	nominative, accusative, or vocative singular of second declension neuter noun testimonium.
libertatum	genitive plural of third declension feminine noun libertas.  No other options than “of liberties” or “liberties’”.
iustitia	nominative, ablative, or vocative singular of first declension feminine noun iustitia.  Well, I suppose that I could perhaps imagine a way that maybe the ablative could be applied in its instrumental sense to make the whole phrase just a tiny bit less asinine.  (For the beavises and buttheads in the audience, I must clarify that “asinine” evokes an ass in the sense of a donkey, not in the American sense of an arse.)

LOL.  Of course, he also does not know the meaning of either of the respective words “objective” and “standards”.

And of course, I did a brief search to see if he was drawing some stock phrase or motto from speakers of barbarous Latin, or perhaps the worst vulgar Latin of the Dark Ages.  If he was, I could not find it—and anyway, it would only mean he was such as fool as the blind following the blind.

Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing X/χ (chi) from τέχνη.  Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi).  Cf. [confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμoς).

* nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term.

Techies who are sufficiently old-school may be perhaps familiar with Prof. Knuth’s TeX (Tεχ), and with arχiv.org (formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov, LOL).  Those are enough of a botch:  Latin X is far away from Greek X.  However, at least the progenitors thereof were sufficiently knowledgeable to squeeze away the CH digraph in a way that makes sense!

As for TE**SHARE’s bitch-Latin, it would indeed look more intelligent to say, exempli gratia, “Techsharius trollus stupidius est”:  That is obviously a joke, and not the empty posturing of a pretentious retard who is obsessed with Arguing On The Internet.

TECSHARE “winning”

But if he really wants to dress to impress, I suggest styling it as such:

TESTIMONIVM·LIBERTATVM·IVSTITIA

* nullius illum miseret

Of course, the pun is that I made it look to the naïve reader as if I had said, “Nullius pities him”—whereas in a post wherein I had alluded to stock phrases, I used a handy stock phrase meaning, “He pities nobody.”

* nullius illum miseret

Nullius: nullius illum miseret!

[1714568424]

1714568424

[1714568424]

1714568424

[1714568424]

1714568424

[TECSHARE]

Insert self fellating screed here.

Who is Techshare? I didn't violate your local rules, not that I bother reading your psychotic screeds.

[TECSHARE]

Just drawing some more attention to this thread to make sure I get my C.I.A. paycheck.

[bonesjonesreturns]

It is quite clear that members that infest meta board have no vested interest in adopting objective standards

This is a result of terrible design that has allowed low quality shit posting scammers and their supporters to nominate each other for the most trusted positions here and place each other in prime positions to scam with impunity and be solely eligible for the best paid sig spots

Objective standards would upset their apple cart.
I think support for any changes that would provide transparent equal opportunities or treatment for all members will be turned down in scammy meta board.

[Vod]

It is quite clear...

When you post that, you're proving it's not clear.  I don't see you posting "It is quite clear humans breathe"...

Objective standards would upset their apple cart.

Such a place is coming. 

[bonesjonesreturns]

It is quite clear...

When you post that, you're proving it's not clear.  I don't see you posting "It is quite clear humans breathe"...

Objective standards would upset their apple cart.

Such a place is coming. 

Is this some covid joke? I am not native english speaker. I dont see what this breathing joke is about.

My point is simply.
There should be no resistance to the introduction of transparent objective standards that ensure every member is treated equally.
There is little support and a lot of resistance. This is clear.

Why must i post humans breath?

[Vod]

My point is simply.
There should be no resistance to the introduction of transparent objective standards that ensure every member is treated equally.
There is little support and a lot of resistance. This is clear.

Why must i post humans breath?

I agree with you.  Set concrete standards and penalize those who don't follow them.  But how do you expect to do that here when there is a trust/political system?  IRL politicians don't follow the rules when there are real consequences. 

The post about "human breathing" was just an example of something that is so clear, it doesn't need posting.  If you say "something is clear", then why is there a need to post it?
 

[bonesjonesreturns]

My point is simply.
There should be no resistance to the introduction of transparent objective standards that ensure every member is treated equally.
There is little support and a lot of resistance. This is clear.

Why must i post humans breath?

I agree with you.  Set concrete standards and penalize those who don't follow them.  But how do you expect to do that here when there is a trust/political system?  IRL politicians don't follow the rules when there are real consequences.  

The post about "human breathing" was just an example of something that is so clear, it doesn't need posting.  If you say "something is clear", then why is there a need to post it?
 

Lets set the transparent concrete standards then those that break them must be cast out.
Any trying to prevent this must be cast out also.
There needs to be some demonstration of accountability.
This bogus must be decentralized nonsense is foolish the governing design is the will of a single entity ...
It can work reasonably decentralized never totally, its an anonymous forum.
If people know with certainty obey the transparent rules or out they will obey

All this cant intervene only when it helps scammers is bogus

Transparent objective rules must be there in a trust system any subjectivity and you will get manipulation collusion and gaming .
In a trust system that is dangerous

[Vod]

Lets set the transparent concrete standards then those that break them must be cast out.

Theymos has set standards many times for leaving negative trust.  But he still supports those who repeatedly break those standards.

If he won't take action, why would anyone else?

This is where you can make a difference by actually doing something.  Just please don't complain about everything for a decade while not trying to improve anything. 

[bonesjonesreturns]

Lets set the transparent concrete standards then those that break them must be cast out.

Theymos has set standards many times for leaving negative trust.  But he still supports those who repeatedly break those standards.

If he won't take action, why would anyone else?

This is where you can make a difference by actually doing something.  Just please don't complain about everything for a decade while not trying to improve anything.  

Theymos has set objective independently verifiable standards for flags 2 and 3. The other is subjective gamed and dangerous rubbish. 

Any subjectivity will immediately be seized upon and manipulated to serve scammers best interest. This is undeniably happening in several observable scenarios here that we can discuss of you like. This would have been avoided should these scamming dt1
Members been forced to abide by objective standards for leaving red tags. Actually many those tags were a contravention of theymos " suggestions back then " strong evidence of scamming" they are still there and theymos did nothing but support the scammers leaving them there. Even claiming the member was telling lies about the scammers?? Then helping arrange the scammers own removal of their credible red tags. Whether this is because theymos never bothers to check the history out before siding with those he is familiar with or if he just really thought it was a lie who knows.

The "if you think " stipulation is pure foolishness when you leave subjectivity there that can be gamed for direct financial gain. Its like saying if you think you should be allowed to scam for extra income,  if you think whistle blowers presenting my past history of scamming should be silenced, if you think you should allow others to act that way because you are worried they will attack you and ruin your account next because they think you should be punished, this is bogus moronic nonsense and irresponsible.


The insoluble problems it creates have been listed and remain undisputed. They range from crushing free speech to trading red tags removals between proven scammers and lots more in between.

The trust abuse that eventually made clear the real need for an objective flagging system was grandfathered in. So the whistleblowers were branded scammers and financially dangerous for whistle blowing and providing irrefutable evidence of financially motivated wrong doing .

The red tagging was left with the same power and insoluble problems but was given more yes more subjectivity than before so the trust system became even more dangerous.

It is simple

Provide objective independently  verifiable and irrefutable evidence of scamming (financially ) for type 2or 3 flag
Provide strong credible evidence of attempting to scam or setting up a scam or seemingly enticing members into a directly vulnerable situation financially for type 1 flag.

That gives you accurate and credible valuable warnings and mitigates or destroys entirely  all the dangerous insoluble problems the current subjective mess creates.

Not sure how providing clear proof of scammers using the current broken system to endanger others and crush free speech while providing an undeniably improved and effective system is not helpful?

Can you show me some member doing more? Because all i see is a bunch of dt supporting or including proven scammers on the trust system and pushing double standards. Some out of fear some out for financial gain.

There is not point trying to tackle this from the bottom up. There must be a design change and objective independently verifiable standards set. Working  within a broken system to create  a fix is nonsense.

Merit is cancer and subjective meaningless and dangerous crap. Red tags are the stick and merit is the carrot that leads to a broken down and corrupt echo chamber. There has never been any refutation of that that stood up to scrutiny.

Theymos is obviously better at coding that understanding human nature. Either way it is impossible to refute my points.
Or if anyone can then lets here the refutation that i will not trash immediately.

Anyone opposing an objective standards based system that ensures each member is treated fairly and equal should be watched closely and have their actions analysed deeply.
Bring them here to explain why ...that is not immediately a self serving selfish bunch of garbage.

I only hope you will be supporting the objective standards guild vod.  There is always a way to correct path if you have not scammed.  Lengthy support of scammers or appeasing scammers is risky and suchmoon likes to walk that line. Perhaps his scamming supporting and protecting has almost made redemption unworkable. There can only be so many attempts made to protect scammers that does not leave permanent taint.

[Vod]

I only hope you will be supporting the objective standards guild vod. 

I support action against scammers.

I don't really support a pretend organization created by a troll after a decade of complaining. 

[nullius]

objective standards

Is this the Objective Standards Guild definition of “objective standards”?

I am open to debate on this matter.

All off topic irrelevant posts will be removed.

Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence as yet.

I have refuted all your so-called “evidence”, as to which you merely dropped links without explanation.  I also pointed out your obvious motives.  Dare to debate?

Well, that took all of 9 minutes and 37 seconds:

Deleted Post
« Sent to: nullius on: Today at 01:31:37 AM »

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

I do not usually follow Reputation.  But as I was preparing to make this thread, I noticed this:

Subject:  Nullius the scammer supporter and dumb fuck wishes to excuse scamming come here.

Post your lauda defense here scammer supporter not on my nutildah thread.

That was said of a post, fully quoted below, which refuted the false accusations against nutildah, before refuting the false accusations against Lauda.  Discussion of Lauda was certainly on-topic, for OP had slung even more mud against Lauda than against nutildah.

Subject:  DT manipulation & economic warfare targeted against nutildah, Lauda, HHampuz, FJ
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5232406.msg54171749#msg54171749
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5417/54171749.html

Disclosures about my relation (or lack theref) to persons or entities named in OP; I will make these disclosures upfront, because these flamewars typically devolve into such questions:

[...]

• As for the primary target of this thread:  I am—not exactly friends with nutildah, to put the matter as delicately as I can without being impolite.  I trust-exclude nutildah for reasons completely unrelated to the absurd accusations in OP; ~nutildah was a difficult decision for me to reach, because nutildah has many good tags.  I think that nutildah sometimes makes some good posts; but I have in my pipeline (to be posted later) a reply to yet another misguided nutildah flame at me, so...  I am anything but biased in favour of nutildah.

[...]


In re nutildah

Nutildah the member who has defined himself by both his words and actions to be a willing scam facilitator for pay, he has also started using red tags to deter people from warning others how untrustworthy and dangerous he is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

The linked topic is a 2019 accusation that nutildah put his forum account up for sale in 2016, and then withdrew it from the market.  No account sale ever actually occurred.

Although that episode may make me question nutildah’s judgment, it occurred almost four years ago; and to my knowledge, no similar behaviour has ever been repeated.

Edited topic title: Not for sale - decided to keep it a long time ago, you fucks.

But it would be worth even less once someone tags the account as being sold.
You should of sold using a dummy account first to avoid this from happening.

They don't call him nutildah for nuttin'
Maybe he didn't do any buying or selling or trading with this account so it doesn't matter so much.

You're right, I didn't, and for everybody's future reference the account is no longer for sale. I've decided to keep it.

Although I myself am strongly opposed to account sales of almost any kind, it is absurd to spin this into evidence of nutildah being a “willing scam facilitator for pay” (!).  What scam was facilitated?  None.  What was paid?  Nothing.

OP is lying.


In re Lauda

Lauda a proven scammer and extortionist

[...substantial refutation...]

LOL.  Of course, he also does not know the meaning of either of the respective words “objective” and “standards”.

P.S., the “Guild’s“ motto is still bitch Latin.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Has the scammer supporter nullius abandoned trying to sound smart and just gone full retard?

I offer to discuss this point by point and debate it in public transparently with just him in a thread

He then runs to his own thread and bans me from posting

His refutation or excuse attempt is pathetic. Then makes false accusations and says i am not allowed to respond.

He claims to know nutildah did not sell his account which is not relevant to my claim that nutildah is a willing scam facilitator for pay. Obviously he must believe the new owner not could post it is not for sale. Lol
This guy is an idiot. Account sellers found ingenious get out of jail card.


So debunks nothing at all regarding nutildah. The evidence is clear nutildah was screaming anyone selling accounts are facilitating scammers and he would report them and tag them to protect other honest members
Then decides he will sell his for around 300 bucks and was for sale for 6 months then try to delete the evidence

With the blantant lauda lying over the dark premine excuse it is even more hilarious

Come to the thread nullius you chicken shit and stop hiding from me.
We will debate your excuses for your scamming pals and you will be crushed.

There is clear deception for direct financial gain from both of your scamming pals laudas and nutildah

Why say you will present a refutation that holds up to scrutiny then run away from the scrutiny
You just make huge bogus assumptions you have no proof of and then just claim you have evidence i am a liar.

Let's  test this out

Come here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238490.0

The objectives standards? Like you giving red trust for empathy is setting the context. Then trying to make up a bogus weak ass defence or excuses for proven scammers.
Lets see how consistent you are scammer supporter.

[TECSHARE]

Lets set the transparent concrete standards then those that break them must be cast out.

Theymos has set standards many times for leaving negative trust.  But he still supports those who repeatedly break those standards.

If he won't take action, why would anyone else?

This is where you can make a difference by actually doing something.  Just please don't complain about everything for a decade while not trying to improve anything. 

My efforts have had a considerable positive impact on the trust system over the years. I couldn't give less of a fuck if some obsessive compulsive mentally deranged alcoholic jackboot is convinced.

[Vod]

My efforts have had a considerable positive impact on the trust system over the years.

Up to debate lol.   Considerable as in first and only member who officially belongs nowhere near DT.

And you want us to follow a drunk in a revolution?  

[OgNasty]

My efforts have had a considerable positive impact on the trust system over the years.

Up to debate lol.   Considerable as in first and only member who officially belongs nowhere near DT.

And you want us to follow a drunk in a revolution?  

That’s funny. TECSHARE is in DT, while you are not. Additionally, the Administrator of this site distrusts you Vod, not TECSHARE.

[TECSHARE]

I am also WAY more trusted than he is

Also, I haven't been a big fan of getting drunk since I was in my 20's... Vod himself has an admitted history of alcohol abuse problems. It is unbelievable how much he projects. He is like a fucking drunk lunatic cartoon caricature.

[nutildah]

I am also WAY more trusted than he is

Your trust score has nothing to do with your ability to use the trust system appropriately.

Think about it for a second: how does people leaving you positive trust reflect your ability to exhibit a good sense of judgment about others?

[suchmoon]

That’s funny. TECSHARE is in DT, while you are not.

It's not that funny. You have resorted to blatant lying now, not that it's a huge change from lying by omission/misrepresentation but still.

Both Vod and TECSHARE are in DT.

[bonesjonesreturns]

I am also WAY more trusted than he is

Your trust score has nothing to do with your ability to use the trust system appropriately.

Think about it for a second: how does people leaving you positive trust reflect your ability to exhibit a good sense of judgment about others?

How does being willing to facilitate other members being scammed for 300 bucks exhibit a good sense of judgement at all?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0
Perhaps if you are honest in trading you can be trusted to select other trustworthy members that dont try to game the trust system so they can scam with impunity??

Think about it if it does not make your fragile scam facilitating mind collapse.

Suchmoon here as usual silently and sneakily fighting against the introduction of objective standards while spamming chipmixer and foxy avatar.

Transparent objective standards would finish scammers and scammer supporters like suchmoon.

Love it when confirmed scammers start implying they themselves dont need to be trustworthy so long as they have "good" judgement.