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

[TECSHARE]

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.

[suchmoon]

Don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less who includes them but they showed up in DT2 at some point and seemed unfit for it.

RidleyReport posted no trust feedback at all. Has one positive rating from you without a reference and for a dubious reason. "This man does great work helping to preserve Americas Constitutional rights. Thank you!" - what does this have to do with being unlikely to scam?

c1010010 posted one positive for you and has one positive rating from you, both without references from 6 years ago.

HardyGoodsLtd - I don't recall the reasons for excluding this one, seems half decent compared to the usual DT sewage so I have removed the exclusion.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and perhaps try to be less of a conspiratard next time. Or not LOL

[Vod]

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

No, Dr. Techy.  But you do it anyway, as do many others.   Prove I dislike instead of distrust.

[TECSHARE]

Don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less who includes them but they showed up in DT2 at some point and seemed unfit for it.

RidleyReport posted no trust feedback at all. Has one positive rating from you without a reference and for a dubious reason. "This man does great work helping to preserve Americas Constitutional rights. Thank you!" - what does this have to do with being unlikely to scam?

c1010010 posted one positive for you and has one positive rating from you, both without references from 6 years ago.

HardyGoodsLtd - I don't recall the reasons for excluding this one, seems half decent compared to the usual DT sewage so I have removed the exclusion.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and perhaps try to be less of a conspiratard next time. Or not LOL

Of course you don't recall, because you simply went through my trust list and started excluding names knowing nothing about them, and you can't think of any halfway decent lie to cover up for it. So people need to earn your permission to not be excluded now, is that what you are saying should be the standard for trust lists? These are all good people which you flippantly slander and exclude because of your blinding bias for me. You don't give a fuck about using the trust system to serve the community, it is simply a toy for you to use to punish people you don't agree with, and anyone who associates with them to fortify your own position within it.

[suchmoon]

Of course you don't recall, because you simply went through my trust list and started excluding names knowing nothing about them, and you can't think of any halfway decent lie to cover up for it. So people need to earn your permission to not be excluded now, is that what you are saying should be the standard for trust lists?

Where did I say that?

These are all good people which you flippantly slander and exclude because of your blinding bias for me. You don't give a fuck about using the trust system to serve the community, it is simply a toy for you to use to punish people you don't agree with, and anyone who associates with them to fortify your own position within it.

I think you're missing a key element of the trust system and that might explain why you're having such a hard time understanding it and keep blaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. I don't claim to be serving the community or whatever straw people you're making up. It's other users who decide whether my trust list, my actions, my opinions are valuable to them or not. Whether those decisions collectively result in a default trust position is completely out of my control unless you believe in some cockamamie conspiracy of a secret cabal controlling DT.

You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up).

[TECSHARE]

I think you're missing a key element of the trust system and that might explain why you're having such a hard time understanding it and keep blaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. I don't claim to be serving the community or whatever straw people you're making up. It's other users who decide whether my trust list, my actions, my opinions are valuable to them or not. Whether those decisions collectively result in a default trust position is completely out of my control unless you believe in some cockamamie conspiracy of a secret cabal controlling DT.

You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up).

The point of the trust system is to serve the community, not to be a tool to perpetrate your vendettas. I am not making anything up. There is absolutely no explanation for those users to be excluded by you except for the fact that I included them. Other people who don't deserve to be excluded being excluded by you doesn't victimize me, it victimizes them, and only because of your petty vindictive attitude treating the trust system like your personal plaything. There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.

[suchmoon]

The point of the trust system is to serve the community, not to be a tool to perpetrate your vendettas. I am not making anything up. There is absolutely no explanation for those users to be excluded by you except for the fact that I included them. Other people who don't deserve to be excluded being excluded by you doesn't victimize me, it victimizes them, and only because of your petty vindictive attitude treating the trust system like your personal plaything. There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.

You must be really desperate to lie about something so blatant that anybody who cares to look at those trust lists can see right through. There are users included by both of us and there are users included by you that I neither include nor exclude so it's quite obvious that I don't exclude "people because of who includes them". Cherrypicking three users out of 80+ doesn't prove any of the bullshit you're making up about me, at most it shows your bizarre need to be a victim and your poor judgement.

[Timelord2o67]

...

So, you're saying you "distrust me" not "dislike me"?

Really?

How so?

[o_e_l_e_o]

but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here

And why would anyone except you want to see the trust ratings of users whom, but your own admission, have had zero interaction with anyone except you?

[TECSHARE]

You must be really desperate to lie about something so blatant that anybody who cares to look at those trust lists can see right through. There are users included by both of us and there are users included by you that I neither include nor exclude so it's quite obvious that I don't exclude "people because of who includes them". Cherrypicking three users out of 80+ doesn't prove any of the bullshit you're making up about me, at most it shows your bizarre need to be a victim and your poor judgement.

You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.

but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here

And why would anyone except you want to see the trust ratings of users whom, but your own admission, have had zero interaction with anyone except you?

You need to learn to read.

...

So, you're saying you "distrust me" not "dislike me"?

Really?

How so?

I think very little of you as a person one way or the other. Your spastic overzealous use of the trust system is why I distrust you.

[suchmoon]

You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.

Are we playing this game again where I'll never guess what you actually meant and you'll refuse to say what you actually meant?

I can't be bothered to care if you believe my explanation or not. We clearly have different opinions of whose judgement can be trusted.

[TECSHARE]

You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.

Are we playing this game again where I'll never guess what you actually meant and you'll refuse to say what you actually meant?

I can't be bothered to care if you believe my explanation or not. We clearly have different opinions of whose judgement can be trusted.

I said what I meant, you just want to pretend like it wasn't said because it saves you the embarassment of trying to craft a failure of a lie to cover for it.

[suchmoon]

I said what I meant, you just want to pretend like it wasn't said because it saves you the embarassment of trying to craft a failure of a lie to cover for it.

What you said was false so I thought you'd want to weasel out of it with some other theory but I'm fine with you being simply wrong.

Anyway, what's your expected outcome here?

[TECSHARE]

What you said was false so I thought you'd want to weasel out of it with some other theory but I'm fine with you being simply wrong.

Anyway, what's your expected outcome here?

I said a lot of things, you have to be more specific. I have already achieved my desired outcome, thanks for asking.

[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 

[TECSHARE]

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.

[DooMAD]

personal vendettas

That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system.  You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive.  

I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.

Trust is earned.  I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me.  Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?

There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.

With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them.  

"Oh, the persecution!"    


 

[TECSHARE]

personal vendettas

That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system.  You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive.  

I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.

Trust is earned.  I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me.  Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?

There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.

With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them.  

"Oh, the persecution!"    

Weird how it is always the same people over an over again saying things like I am being obsessive as if these complaints happen in a vacuum. No one has to trust some one just because I do, but excluding some one just because I trusted them? You are calling me obsessive? That is pretty pathetic to punish other people for no other reason than you don't like me. Gamesmanship? If I was trying to game the system why would I spend so much time pissing in the faces of the people most able to rank me up within it if I just kissed their asses? Nothing you said makes any sense, good attempt though. I look forward to you working up the nuts to try again soon.

[wolwoo]

I am taking firm steps towards becoming the most unreliable member of forum history.

http://loyce.club/trust/2020-05-23_Sat_05.03h/1003533.html

[DooMAD]

I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.

Trust is earned.  I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me.  Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?

No one has to trust some one just because I do, but excluding some one just because I trusted them? You are calling me obsessive? That is pretty pathetic to punish other people for no other reason than you don't like me.

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.