Request to remove icopress from DT Default Trust list

[stompix]

What if Neighbor NATO had been threatening Neighbor A for over a decade?  No reason, indeed.
Your opinion conflicts with mine, should I leave you a red-tag?

Hmm, I'm curious about one thing....what if...
- Country A, a member of NATO, has never threatened Russia ever
- Russia's former president has threatened us a total of 11 times with nuking our capital, and Russian TV stations do documentaries on how they would flatten our country
- We joined NATO because we don't want russian tanks in our country anymore?

And unlike your "if" , my "if" actually happened!  

Of course, if you think your "if" is real, I will not feel the need to tag you just for your opinion, but where do we draw the line, when you call for Russia to actually nuke my city?

Since we're here, "if" there is a member of this forum that takes pleasure in celebrating US deaths and is calling for a certain country to unleash rockets and bombs on US cities, ironically, while wearing a well-known flag to you, is this still on the realm of opinions, or in the realm of mentally ill ban/tag worthy stuff? Just your opinion, since you opened the "if" scenarios!

[DaRude]

What if Neighbor NATO had been threatening Neighbor A for over a decade?  No reason, indeed.
Your opinion conflicts with mine, should I leave you a red-tag?

Hmm, I'm curious about one thing....what if...
- Country A, a member of NATO, has never threatened Russia ever
- Russia's former president has threatened us a total of 11 times with nuking our capital, and Russian TV stations do documentaries on how they would flatten our country
- We joined NATO because we don't want russian tanks in our country anymore?

And unlike your "if" , my "if" actually happened!  

Of course, if you think your "if" is real, I will not feel the need to tag you just for your opinion, but where do we draw the line, when you call for Russia to actually nuke my city?

Since we're here, "if" there is a member of this forum that takes pleasure in celebrating US deaths and is calling for a certain country to unleash rockets and bombs on US cities, ironically, while wearing a well-known flag to you, is this still on the realm of opinions, or in the realm of mentally ill ban/tag worthy stuff? Just your opinion, since you opened the "if" scenarios!

Zelenskyy interview to Lowy Institute 7 October 2022 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/video/special-address-volodymyr-zelenskyy-president-ukraine
Live translation
"What should NATO do? Eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons. But what is important, I once again appeal to the international community, as I did before February 24: we need preemptive strikes, preemptive actions, so that they know what will happen to them if they use them. And not the other way around—waiting for Russia's nuclear strikes first, to then say, 'Oh, you did that, now take this.' Rethink how you apply pressure, the order of how you apply it."

The Original Ukrainian Transcript
"Щo мaє poбити HATO? Bиключaти мoжливicть зacтocyвaння Pociєю ядepнoї збpoї. Aлe щo вaжливo, я щe paз звepтaюcя дo мiжнapoднoї cпiльнoти, як цe бyлo дo 24 лютoгo: пpeвeнтивнi yдapи, щoб вoни знaли, щo з ними бyдe, якщo зacтocyють. A нe нaвпaки – чeкaти ядepниx yдapiв Pociї, щoб пoтiм cкaзaти: «Ax, ти тaк, нy, ocь тpимaй вiд нac!». Пepeглянyти викopиcтaння cвoгo тиcкy – ocь щo, я ввaжaю, тpeбa poбити, пepeглянyти пopядoк зacтocyвaння."

Google translate from The Original Ukrainian Transcript
"What should NATO do? Exclude the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons. But what is important, I once again appeal to the international community, as it was before February 24: preventive strikes, so that they know what will happen to them if they use them. And not the other way around - waiting for Russia's nuclear strikes, and then saying: "Oh, you're right, well, keep them away from us!". Review the use of your pressure - that's what I believe we need to do, review the procedure for using them."

12 June 2022
Radoslaw Sikorski, the European Parliament Deputy and former [and future] Foreign Minister of Poland, suggested providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons. He argued that Russia broke the terms of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by refusing to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity, so nuclear weapons should be returned to Kyiv, even though Ukrainians voluntarily disposed of them.

  point being, perhaps it's best to leave politics in Politics board and keep the Trust system out of it?

[DireWolfM14]

~

I was merely, playing devil's advocate (but maybe the rolls are actually reversed?)  I don't want to get into a political debate in this section, but suffice it to say that nothing is as simple as mv1986's schoolyard hypothetical made it sound.  No county invades another "for no reason."  That's the take of a brainwashed simpleton, which in itself is offensive when debating complex matters.

[mv1986]

~

I was merely, playing devil's advocate (but maybe the rolls are actually reversed?)  I don't want to get into a political debate in this section, but suffice it to say that nothing is as simple as mv1986's schoolyard hypothetical made it sound.  No county invades another "for no reason."  That the take of a brainwashed simpleton, which in itself is offensive when debating complex matters.

[stompix]

I don't want to get into a political debate in this section,

Me neither...I was just curious, reading your example of interaction on another forum, where you draw the line between thinking this is this user's political opinion, which he has every right to have, despite disliking that view from the bottom of your heart, and posting and cheering for stuff that would get you killed!
As I said, just curious, I thought everyone has lines, where do you, as a guy who respects everyone's right to have an opinion, draw one?
Well, if you don't have one, although it's hard to believe, respect, never met someone like this!

[DireWolfM14]

I thought everyone has lines, where do you, as a guy who respects everyone's right to have an opinion, draw one?

Actions, not words.  For example; Americans who join the IOF.

Maybe it's generational thing, but I don't know many GenXers who don't have a thick skin when it comes to differing political opinions.  I grew up in northern California where the vast majority of people (family and friends included) are politically liberal, while I tend to lean more towards the conservative side of the spectrum.  I still have family and friends that love me, and I love them despite regular debates and disagreements.

[tvbcof]

...

...

Having no economic activities, I personally don't care a bit about this particular incident.  Indeed, getting a negative rating with this feedback from a prick like ~icopress is something of a positive.  For me.  Not so funny for others though, and especially those who care for whatever reason.

I've never 'believed in' Themos's trust system as a practical engineering solution since I don't think there is one, but I give him great credit for trying and for the success he has had.  Maybe now-adays where there is some progress on the AI front, there could be some hope however.

Certainly I believe that ~icopress's (and his ilk's) gaming of the system is unethical and I like to think that most people who matter recognize this and it reflects poorly on him and his whole cohort.  I could see things being so objectionable (and insulting to the forum designers and operators) that action would be warranted in extreme cases.  This would be one such case.  Here is what I would suggest after a few minutes of thought:

 - a judgement by the operators that, yes, this user is a fuck-wad of a particular type and worthy of punishment.
 - guilty party gets a special negative 10x mark.
 - all negative trust left bearing elements of the infraction is reversed to positive.  Alas, this would require work.
 - all other trust left by offender is deleted (these freaks seem to work in circle-jerk groups.)
 - metrics on deleted trusts are kept for algorithms which detect evidence of circle-jerkage so that other associated miscreants can be rooted out (hopefully in an automated manner.)

[LTU_btc]

I agree that's probably not most appropriate use of trust system, but when I see what stuff OP is posting, I can't judge ico for feedback that he left. Though, maybe neutral tag would fit better there.

I was merely, playing devil's advocate (but maybe the rolls are actually reversed?)  I don't want to get into a political debate in this section, but suffice it to say that nothing is as simple as mv1986's schoolyard hypothetical made it sound.  No county invades another "for no reason."  That's the take of a brainwashed simpleton, which in itself is offensive when debating complex matters.

I love when someone from the States pretends that he knows what's is really happening thousands miles away from you. When in reality you just get what you see on media, Twitter, bloggers or I don't know what you're following. But you pretend that you know things better than peoplewho lives here.
You see NATO as evil. We from our painful history see Russia as eternal threat for our existense.
Yeah, Russia probably has their reasons like expanding their land, taking resources and etc, but none of these doesn't justify what they did. But calling threat from NATO as one of reasons just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[WhatareYou]

This is a clear case of abusing trust. I’m curious how many reports or messages theymos received before deciding to comment. In my view, Icopress is misusing their position of authority. The DT system would quickly lose credibility if members started leaving personal attacks on the profiles of people they disagree with for Politics.   The whole situation is turning into a complete mess and icopress smells like shit

[DaRude]

I agree that's probably not most appropriate use of trust system, but when I see what stuff OP is posting, I can't judge ico for feedback that he left. Though, maybe neutral tag would fit better there.

I was merely, playing devil's advocate (but maybe the rolls are actually reversed?)  I don't want to get into a political debate in this section, but suffice it to say that nothing is as simple as mv1986's schoolyard hypothetical made it sound.  No county invades another "for no reason."  That's the take of a brainwashed simpleton, which in itself is offensive when debating complex matters.

I love when someone from the States pretends that he knows what's is really happening thousands miles away from you. When in reality you just get what you see on media, Twitter, bloggers or I don't know what you're following. But you pretend that you know things better than peoplewho lives here.
You see NATO as evil. We from our painful history see Russia as eternal threat for our existense.
Yeah, Russia probably has their reasons like expanding their land, taking resources and etc, but none of these doesn't justify what they did. But calling threat from NATO as one of reasons just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Seems like your argument falls into the category of: Yes this is wrong and the Trust system shouldn't be used like that, but just because at this point of time this specific case supports my current ideology, I'm willing to close my eyes on it and let it slide.

Perhaps it'd be best if you enlighten everyone and show what true vile stuff that I'm posting to justify such an exception? So far, all we have is a snippet from my reply to Stalker22 (must be why s/he's so vocal on here too) posts  talking about objectively comparing civilian casualty rates

Full post for context:

Now lets flip it right back and around. The recent attacks in Russia ( Lugansk ), killing six to eight innocent children was not reported,  why?!
This is broad day light hypocrisy from most of these western reporters. Not a single report when it is done by the Kiev regime. Saddening to see.

I still do not get how the west are comfortable with striking and killing children. The parents 9f these children demanded justice so Russia gave a response and feedback.

First of all, your claim that the Western media completely ignores these incidents is flat-out wrong.  When civilian casualties occur, they get documented - often by independent international bodies, not just state-controlled propaganda outlets.  Will the Russian regime allow such an investigation into this incident, or should we just take their word for it?

Secondly, you are expressing passionate outrage over one horrific, unverified report while completely closing your eyes to the mountain of documented, systematic Russian airstrikes that have leveled entire Ukrainian cities, hospitals, and schools for over four years now.  We are talking about thousands of innocent civilian victims since the beginning of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.  Confirmed by independent bodies in the UN.  Are those children less innocent to you?  

You talk about justice and the right to reply.  My question is, then, when do you expect justice to be done?

You calling it "unverified report" is quiet telling, who's authority do you trust to make it verified for you? Or everything that happens in Russia is unverified to you by definition? Fact of the matter is that there are thousands of civilian casualties on both sides, unfortunately even UN treats everything that happens in pre 2013 Ukrainian borders as Ukrainian casualties. That is, when Ukraine counter attacks or lobs missiles or drones at Donetsk or Crimea all civilian casualties are  conveniently counted as "Ukrainian" making the counts useless.

Civilian casualties are always terrible, and should always be minimized and ideally eliminated! But objectively speaking, when comparing to other conflicts in intensity (missiles, artillery, drones, bombs dropped), duration, and civilian to military losses, this objectively might be the most "humane", as in the war with the least civilian casualty rates ever. But no one seems to be concerned with facts here.

The bigger question is whether you believe that US military, intelligence, think tanks, ministry of foreign affairs/state department etc... correctly modeled and predicted such outcome when they gave out cookies and sponsored the coup detat in Ukraine in 2014 that started this all, and still felt that it was worth it? And then again when Russia requested written security guarantees on Ukraine in 2021? Or do you think they were completely ignorant and just said fuck it, let's just see how it plays out?

If this is the worst that there is on me to justify negative Trust, and inaction by those that supposed to oversee the process and prevent such abuse of it, then i'll side with tvbcof and wear it as a badge of honor. As at this point it's not my issue anymore, but something for theymos and other DTs to deal with if they wish for the system to keep any resemblance of validity.

It seems blatantly obvious, but just in case i'll still say it. Clearly we all agree that decentralization is great, but with special status (DT) must come some responsibility and accountability. Any governing body should at least self govern and have an appeals forum or at least a board that meets and discusses/reviews cases. There must be a meeting with a quorum of DTs where cases are reviewed and voted on to prevent abuse and injustice. Putting out a decentralized system with select few in control and then leaving it up to a user and just saying good luck chasing people to right a wrong in it, is a recipe for a failure.

[dkbit98]

I would not give someone a negative trust just because I don't agree with his political views.
It's much better to ignore someone you don't agree with, and that is what I usually do.

This is a clear case of abusing trust.

You are a clear case of puppet altaccount created one day ago, and your word means nothing here.

[goldkingcoiner]

I think red trust should be reserved for people who scam/are trying to scam or are otherwise financially dangerous business partners. Anything else should be a neutral flag or an entry in the distrust list.

Giving someone a red trust over hurt feelings or subjectively evil world views does nothing but muddy the waters of the trust system. At some point we will not know who we can or cannot trust simply because that individual has an unpleasant personality.

[Stalker22]

~(must be why s/he's so vocal on here too)

Look, English is not my native language so I had to ask Gemini in case I misunderstood:

"s/he's so vocal": The person posts a lot, argues frequently, or is very opinionated and loud about a specific topic.

Seriously?

For reference, up to this point I had one reply on this topic.  I repeat - only one.  (The other post was my reply to Rating Place, and off-topic in this case).  And that was only after the admin left his judgment.  So please explain to me how you find me "so vocal" when I have essentially posted a single time? 

Your title suggests that you are requesting the removal of a member from the DT list, yet you have some kind of problem with me, as a DT member, expressing my opinion?  Would it be better if I were on your side?  Would I still be "so vocal" on here?   

Next time you want to throw shade at me, how about you actually address my arguments, or at least check the thread history and get your facts straight first so you dont end up looking completely ridiculous?

[Rating Place]

The DT and trust system is brilliant. The problem is that your type of thinking and misuse of the trust system along with icopress’ misuse is a problem.

That is your opinion and I accept it, but just out of curiosity, in what specific case do you think I am misusing the trust system?  If you are talking about your own case, then I think I have clearly explained my reasons for the distrust.  

And I said I would revise my position in a month - thats exactly how long it took you to admit your "mistake" and apologize to nutildah.  Have you forgotten?

Nutildah - I apologize for my false allegation of calling you a liar.

By the way, leaving petty, retaliatory negative feedback is exactly the kind of Trust system abuse you are referring to.  Therefore, I have excluded you from my Trust List, and you are free to do the same if you disagree.  That, in my opinion, is proper use of the Trust system.

When you see so many people disagree with the negative trust, people should take personal  responsibility and change it to neutral.

I agree.  But to paraphrase a bit, whenever I see many people, whom I trust or care about, disagree with my negative trust, I'll take personal responsibility and revise it to neutral.  A self-policing system only works if you listen to the users who actually have a track record of integrity, not just whoever screams the loudest.  If the people whose judgment I respect tell me I got it wrong, I have no problem swallowing my pride and changing it.  But until then, the rating stays exactly where it is.

 I assume that you've probably only read a few of my 5,000 posts because we post in different sub forums. I attributed one quote to the wrong person. As soon as I found out, I apologized. There is no smearing of members. The only person I disagree with is holy darkness and I can prove the veracity of my statements. I took your trust down a while back.

I do not trust this member. He was caught lying and refuses to admit it or apologize. Instead, he is trying to smear and defame reputable members to cover up his own lies.

[LTU_btc]

Seems like your argument falls into the category of: Yes this is wrong and the Trust system shouldn't be used like that, but just because at this point of time this specific case supports my current ideology, I'm willing to close my eyes on it and let it slide.

Perhaps it'd be best if you enlighten everyone and show what true vile stuff that I'm posting to justify such an exception? So far, all we have is a snippet from my reply to Stalker22 (must be why s/he's so vocal on here too) posts  talking about objectively comparing civilian casualty rates

First of it's not an ideology, but ok, not going deeper into it. Nope, it's not about being on right or wrong side. Trust system isn't made for these things and probably only neutral tag can be appropriate in such situations. I just can understand icopress - try to put yourself in his position. Living for more than 4 years in warzone, he probably lost some friends or family members and then you see someone continuous justifying war - great feeling, right?
And no, sorry, I'm not going to quote here - I have better ways to spend my evening than digging through your posts history. During these 4 years I had enough interactions with you and saw more than enough your posts.

[Vod]

I can understand icopress - try to put yourself in his position. Living for more than 4 years in warzone, he probably lost some friends or family members and then you see someone continuous justifying war - great feeling, right?

I wasn't going to bother posting in this thread, but this is too powerful of a point.   I know personally the power of stress on the body and how personalities can be affected.   And I was never in a war zone living on constant worry about a random missile strike.

icopress has massive amounts of DT trust for a long period of positive community interaction. You can tell this isn't a serious accusation since some are using anonymous accounts to attack.   If you really believe what you write, stand behind your words like I do.

[Stalker22]

~
I attributed one quote to the wrong person. As soon as I found out, I apologized. There is no smearing of members.

Obviously, that is not true.  Because if it were, there would be no need for a negative tag, right?

Here are some facts:
You misquoted holydarkness on April 11 - here.  Multiple members, including nutildah, have tried to point out your mistake, but you have consistently dismissed every single one of them.  Instead of admitting you made a mistake, you have doubled down, deflected, and even accused a reputable forum member of lying at least three times.  At this point, your refusal to acknowledge a simple misquote isnt just a mistake anymore - its a blatant choice to be dishonest.  I tagged your account on May 10.  You admitted your mistake and apologized to nutildah later that same day.

[Rating Place]

~
I attributed one quote to the wrong person. As soon as I found out, I apologized. There is no smearing of members.

Obviously, that is not true.  Because if it were, there would be no need for a negative tag, right?

Here are some facts:
You misquoted holydarkness on April 11 - here.  Multiple members, including nutildah, have tried to point out your mistake, but you have consistently dismissed every single one of them.  Instead of admitting you made a mistake, you have doubled down, deflected, and even accused a reputable forum member of lying at least three times.  At this point, your refusal to acknowledge a simple misquote isnt just a mistake anymore - its a blatant choice to be dishonest.  I tagged your account on May 10.  You admitted your mistake and apologized to nutildah later that same day.

So that’s the worst I’ve done in 12 years? Sure I doubled down because I obviously believed what I said as being true. I used that same quote many times. Holydarkness has said that same thing in different words for 2 years so there wasn’t a need to doubt.

It wasn’t to mislead anyone since those are his thoughts in different words. Holy says the book is the middle man, odds providers make the final call and flags are proof for things such as arbitrage betting.

I’ll make a spreadsheet of nutildah’s trolling for 2 years if you want. I don’t read a lot of his posts.

You don’t see a problem with the trust system if that’s your reason for negative trust?

[dragonvslinux]

~
I attributed one quote to the wrong person. As soon as I found out, I apologized. There is no smearing of members.

Obviously, that is not true.  Because if it were, there would be no need for a negative tag, right?

Here are some facts:
You misquoted holydarkness on April 11 - here.  Multiple members, including nutildah, have tried to point out your mistake, but you have consistently dismissed every single one of them.  Instead of admitting you made a mistake, you have doubled down, deflected, and even accused a reputable forum member of lying at least three times.  At this point, your refusal to acknowledge a simple misquote isnt just a mistake anymore - its a blatant choice to be dishonest.  I tagged your account on May 10.  You admitted your mistake and apologized to nutildah later that same day.

So that’s the worst I’ve done in 12 years? Sure I doubled down because I obviously believed what I said as being true. I used that same quote many times. Holydarkness has said that same thing in different words for 2 years so there wasn’t a need to doubt.

It wasn’t to mislead anyone since those are his thoughts in different words. Holy says the book is the middle man, odds providers make the final call and flags are proof for things such as arbitrage betting.

I’ll make a spreadsheet of nutildah’s trolling for 2 years if you want. I don’t read a lot of his posts.

You don’t see a problem with the trust system if that’s your reason for negative trust?

Congratulations, this comment earnt you -6.