Is excluding people just because some one you don't like includes them valid?

[TECSHARE]

The point was, if a relative stranger suddenly appears on DT, regardless of who put them there, people are going to check to see if there's a good reason for them to be there or not.  If people arrive at the conclusion they shouldn't be there, it may be the right course of action to distrust an unknown quantity.  Why do you immediately have to turn it into something sinister about who does or doesn't like you?  

You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you.  It's clearly affecting your judgement.  You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing.

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically.

This isn't about me to anyone except Suchmoon. This is sad collective punishment by guilt via association and it directly effects me in no way whatsoever other than having Suchmoon's nose lodged firmly up my ass sniffing for peanuts about to come out. They aren't random people to me. They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust. This is the definition of gate keeping.

[o_e_l_e_o]

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them.

That's the whole point. If someone's ratings start showing up as "trusted" in default trust or my own trust list, and I have no information whatsoever to judge them upon, then I can place exactly zero trust in those ratings. Therefore, I don't want to see them.

They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust.

They haven't earned anyone else's trust and they have had no interaction with anyone else on the forum, so why shouldn't other people be allowed to distrust them without you opening a thread complaining about it?

If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.

[nutildah]

If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.

Quite honestly I was trying to avoid mixing myself up in another TS thread, but after he stated this:

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically.

I couldn't help but think of this:

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.

They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum

That's fine -- then you should leave them a positive trust. AFAICT nobody disagrees with the ratings you left for them (well, except for leaving a trust for someone based on your assessment of their ability to "preserve Americas Constitutional rights"  )

Including them in your trust list means you trust not only their ability to leave correct trust ratings but that you trust their ability to use the trust system as well. You've added 2 of the 3 to your trust list for no discernible reason when a simple positive trust would suffice.

[suchmoon]

I thought TECSHARE achieved his goal with this thread - presumably proving some sort of criminal clown cartel corruption (I just realized there is a "car" in "cartel" so that's solid proof right there) - so why is this still going on.

[peloso]

suchmoon  and other morons ( such as cycling ) continue colluding and abusing trust system
nothing changed

[amishmanish]

--snip--
I couldn't help but think of this:

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.

He is actually so full of shit. Look at him turning into the ethical preacher at his convenience.

The point of the trust system is to serve the community,

Such a glaring hypocrite. LOL@ attempt to show ethics. Stuff like "Trust system is to serve the community" doesn't suit him after abusing it to no end with his mutual inclusions AND being a tool in perpetuating conspiracy theories about everything from DT, this forum and to even bitcoin.

[TECSHARE]

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them.

That's the whole point. If someone's ratings start showing up as "trusted" in default trust or my own trust list, and I have no information whatsoever to judge them upon, then I can place exactly zero trust in those ratings. Therefore, I don't want to see them.

They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust.

They haven't earned anyone else's trust and they have had no interaction with anyone else on the forum, so why shouldn't other people be allowed to distrust them without you opening a thread complaining about it?

If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.

That might make sense if they had actually left any ratings, but they haven't (except for one, which Suchmoon removed the exclusion for anyway). Again, I never claimed anyone had to trust them because I do, but distrusting them simply because I trust them is not only petty but counterproductive, and is a form of guilt via association and collective punishment. I also never said it wasn't allowed, simply that it demonstrates the petty vindictive motives of Suchmoon.

If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.

Quite honestly I was trying to avoid mixing myself up in another TS thread, but after he stated this:

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically.

I couldn't help but think of this:

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.

They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum

That's fine -- then you should leave them a positive trust. AFAICT nobody disagrees with the ratings you left for them (well, except for leaving a trust for someone based on your assessment of their ability to "preserve Americas Constitutional rights"   )

Including them in your trust list means you trust not only their ability to leave correct trust ratings but that you trust their ability to use the trust system as well. You've added 2 of the 3 to your trust list for no discernible reason when a simple positive trust would suffice.

I put the operative term "considering for inclusion" in bold. Considering is not the same thing as automatically doing it. Furthermore trusting people is not the same as distrusting people. Inclusions are for people you trust. Trust ratings are for positive exchanges. Funny how you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser.

I thought TECSHARE achieved his goal with this thread - presumably proving some sort of criminal clown cartel corruption (I just realized there is a "car" in "cartel" so that's solid proof right there) - so why is this still going on.

I don't know, ask your clown friends.

--snip--
I couldn't help but think of this:

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.

He is actually so full of shit. Look at him turning into the ethical preacher at his convenience.

The point of the trust system is to serve the community,

Such a glaring hypocrite. LOL@ attempt to show ethics. Stuff like "Trust system is to serve the community" doesn't suit him after abusing it to no end with his mutual inclusions AND being a tool in perpetuating conspiracy theories about everything from DT, this forum and to even bitcoin.

Again, you ignore the operative term "considering for inclusion". Furthermore, again, inclusions are not the same as exclusions. One more time, you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser. This is the clown clan way.

[o_e_l_e_o]

That might make sense if they had actually left any ratings, but they haven't

Exactly. So how do I know I can trust their ratings? I can't, therefore it is sensible for me to exclude them so I do not see any ratings they may leave.

One more time, you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser.

Wait, what? Did you forget that you are the one who opened this thread, called suchmoon a trust abuser, and demanded they account for it? At no point since these users were excluded over a year ago did anyone start a thread and demand that you account for their inclusion.

[TECSHARE]

That might make sense if they had actually left any ratings, but they haven't

Exactly. So how do I know I can trust their ratings? I can't, therefore it is sensible for me to exclude them so I do not see any ratings they may leave.

One more time, you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser.

Wait, what? Did you forget that you are the one who opened this thread, called suchmoon a trust abuser, and demanded they account for it? At no point since these users were excluded over a year ago did anyone start a thread and demand that you account for their inclusion.

You are stretching pretty hard to justify this vindictive behavior. They have left no ratings, what is the problem? Are you suggesting people should exclude users preemptively just in case they leave bad ratings?

No, I haven't forgotten. The point is all of the people here justifying Suchmoon's actions have all demanded I explain my inclusions, and have used the simple fact that I use a custom trust list as "evidence" of trust system abuse. The very point is there is one standard for the clown klan, and another for everyone else.

[o_e_l_e_o]

have used the simple fact that I use a custom trust list as "evidence" of trust system abuse.

That's literally exactly what you are doing here against suchmoon.

[TwitchySeal]

I was looking through Suchmoon's distrust list today and a few names stood out to me.

~RidleyReport (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0)
~c1010010 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0)
~HardyGoodsLtd (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0)

The first two users are almost totally inactive here, and users I added to my trust list because of mostly off forum interactions with them. The last user is a reputable trader here and as far as I can tell has zero complaints against him. Is it appropriate to add people to your exclusions simply because some one you don't like includes them? I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil. Isn't this exactly what you have accused me of doing in retaliation multiple times Suchmoon? The only difference is what you accused me of was adding users who excluded me to my exclusions, you have gone a step further and decided to exclude people simply because I included them. That seems rather petty and abusive to me. Feel free to impress us with your mental gymnastics though.

Was c1010010 your alt account at any point?

[marlboroza]

Seems TwitchySeal is up to something.

The point is all of the people here justifying Suchmoon's actions have all demanded I explain my inclusions, and have used the simple fact that I use a custom trust list as "evidence" of trust system abuse.

Probably because almost everyone knows how you include people to your trust network lately, it is either out of spite and/or because someone become DT1, hopping they will return favor and add you to their trust networks.

Anyway, suchmoon explained why he excluded some users (read post #2), so why don't you lock this topic as it is resolved?

[TECSHARE]

have used the simple fact that I use a custom trust list as "evidence" of trust system abuse.

That's literally exactly what you are doing here against suchmoon.

Again, you need to learn to read.

Was c1010010 your alt account at any point?

I have at no point ever had any alternate accounts here as I have said many times. Even if it was an alt, it would essentially be useless.

By the way, I noticed you joined in with your usual hive mind mob mentality and excluded these users too.

6/1/2020 10:27:17 PM    DT2 selection    TwitchySeal DT1 distrusts c1010010 DT2
6/1/2020 10:27:17 PM    DT2 selection    TwitchySeal DT1 distrusts RidleyReport DT2

Way to prove you all don't operate as a klan and meter out collective punishment and use guilt via association.

[JaredKaragen]

I exclude a few that I personally do not know.   I have reasons.


I include a few that I personally do not know.   I have reasons.


Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance 

That is not the same thing, nor the question I posed.

People can add and remove from their lists as they see fit.   And its up to the rest of us to see what that means to each of us individually and act accordingly.....

the question posed was very much addressed in my opinion;  very clearly and in its simplest form.... as each person:  makes their own choices.


If you did not derive:  I do not see any wrongdoing prima facie.

[TECSHARE]

People can add and remove from their lists as they see fit.   And its up to the rest of us to see what that means to each of us individually and act accordingly.....

the question posed was very much addressed in my opinion;  very clearly and in its simplest form.... as each person:  makes their own choices.


If you did not derive:  I do not see any wrongdoing prima facie.

That is not under dispute, and I agree. However my inclusions and exclusions are constantly under a microscope by these same individuals, and accusations of trust abuse are levied against me for noting more than adding people they do not agree with, followed by demands I explain myself.

My post here about Suchmoon is simply demonstrating their motives are not about building a positive trust system, but about using it as a tool of personal retribution, regardless of what is allowed.

[TwitchySeal]

That is not under dispute, and I agree. However my inclusions and exclusions are constantly under a microscope by these same individuals, and accusations of trust abuse are levied against me for noting more than adding people they do not agree with

They're alleging that you include people for no other reason than to give them a reason to include you in return, putting you one step closer to your coveted spot on a list. 

[nutildah]

My post here about Suchmoon is simply demonstrating their motives are not about building a positive trust system, but about using it as a tool of personal retribution, regardless of what is allowed.

I still find it bizarre that you would complain about it after having stated that you do the same thing.

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them.

You have a long history of adding users to your trust list simply because other people have excluded them. This has led to you including alts of people that you had excluded. Perhaps you are "under a microscope" because you are supposedly championing "objective standards" when it comes use of the trust system but refuse to employ them yourself. This is a pretty humorous example of said hypocrisy:



Here you are telling people to change their profile pic and signature to advertise your "guild" but for some reason you aren't doing the same. It appears you just enjoy telling people what they should do with no desire to actually do it yourself. Try leading by example if you want to be taken seriously.

[TwitchySeal]

Here you are telling people to change their profile pic and signature to advertise your "guild" but for some reason you aren't doing the same. It appears you just enjoy telling people what they should do with no desire to actually do it yourself. Try leading by example if you want to be taken seriously.

He often cries about being abused by a 'mob'. He's trying to create one.

Seems like that's really what all these threads are.

[suchmoon]

That is not under dispute, and I agree. However my inclusions and exclusions are constantly under a microscope by these same individuals, and accusations of trust abuse are levied against me for noting more than adding people they do not agree with, followed by demands I explain myself.

False. If you're including sockpuppets who prop each other into the trust system - the problem is more than just not agreeing with somebody.

My post here about Suchmoon is simply demonstrating their motives are not about building a positive trust system, but about using it as a tool of personal retribution, regardless of what is allowed.

False again. If you exclude somebody included by me - is that retribution too, or does this apply only in one direction?

I get what you're doing. You're repeating this nonsense as if it's a fact to support your victimhood and that's been a fairly successful strategy for you with this new trust system, since most DT1 members can't be bothered to look beyond your lies. That doesn't really make you not a liar and it only highlights the sleazy way you got yourself into DT. Well, not anymore, but good luck in the lottery next month.

[JaredKaragen]

That is not under dispute, and I agree. However my inclusions and exclusions are constantly under a microscope by these same individuals, and accusations of trust abuse are levied against me for noting more than adding people they do not agree with, followed by demands I explain myself.

My post here about Suchmoon is simply demonstrating their motives are not about building a positive trust system, but about using it as a tool of personal retribution, regardless of what is allowed.

Agreed;  but I myself am willing to take any flack that those inclusions or exclusions may entail...

deserved or not... it happens =/
I do see merit in things said on both sides;  its why I speak.  No flack meant.