Re: ANALOGY - Let me see who says what - OPEN challenge mods and THEYMOS welcome
The above is a picture of theymos I took after he saw this thread.
The analogy is not blackmail, nor am I aware of anyone doing this. There are certainly ratings given out for questionable reasons and certain people often have transgressions overlooked, but nothing like this.
The closest I can think of to this is people calling out lauda for stealing funds in escrow for an ICO gone bad and him giving negative trust for calling out his extortion attempt. In these cases, no one else piled on.
You are wrong and I will demonstrate clearly why there are red tags given for instances very similar to this.
Look at that snitch skank suchmoon trying to derail and make this a joke.
Sadly this is not going to work.
The analogy as presented IMO is pretty simple.
Alice has been wronged/victimized her property was physically removed from her persons. She was present for this theft, and was able to confront the perpetrator. She then outlined her course of action to involve the authorities, if the property isn't returned to her. I do not see that as a threat, more of an undeserved olive branch. Bob at the moment has wronged the individual and has a decision to make. The police are not involved in this analogy, only mentioned as a possible future so I don't know why they are being discussed.
Considering this is an Analogy let's not treat it like a blind study. What is this really about maybe a link to what I'm guessing is a Reputation or Scam accusations thread.
This part clearly shows you are here discussing something else, by bringing red trust and peoples reasons for it into the discussion. You also have already made your mind up on what you expect to see. This is weird because we are only supposed to discuss the analogy, you just wrote it but are positive you know how people will react. Now you've seen my opinion on your analogy, but that is only in the context of what you have presented. There are varying degrees to which the situation could change, and then the labels or views of the participants may also change.
For example - Did Alice take the phone from someone Bob knows? that could change things.
Alice has been wronged/victimized her property was physically removed from her persons. She was present for this theft, and was able to confront the perpetrator. She then outlined her course of action to involve the authorities, if the property isn't returned to her. I do not see that as a threat, more of an undeserved olive branch. Bob at the moment has wronged the individual and has a decision to make. The police are not involved in this analogy, only mentioned as a possible future so I don't know why they are being discussed.
Considering this is an Analogy let's not treat it like a blind study. What is this really about maybe a link to what I'm guessing is a Reputation or Scam accusations thread.
MANY DT members now claim this how they view that analogy and how each character should be viewed and treated.
Alice = black mailer and untrustworthy
Bob = victim and trustworthy
Police should reward BOB and punish Alice.
They stick to this fucked up reasoning to justify giving red trust.
I want to hear it from each person so I can establish I am dealing with people that are completely corrupt and will say anything to protect proven scumbags here.
Let's see what kind of justice our systems of control are dishing out. I mean it is like poor old Alice "just fell down the rabbit hole straight to hell" haha
Alice = black mailer and untrustworthy
Bob = victim and trustworthy
Police should reward BOB and punish Alice.
They stick to this fucked up reasoning to justify giving red trust.
I want to hear it from each person so I can establish I am dealing with people that are completely corrupt and will say anything to protect proven scumbags here.
Let's see what kind of justice our systems of control are dishing out. I mean it is like poor old Alice "just fell down the rabbit hole straight to hell" haha
This part clearly shows you are here discussing something else, by bringing red trust and peoples reasons for it into the discussion. You also have already made your mind up on what you expect to see. This is weird because we are only supposed to discuss the analogy, you just wrote it but are positive you know how people will react. Now you've seen my opinion on your analogy, but that is only in the context of what you have presented. There are varying degrees to which the situation could change, and then the labels or views of the participants may also change.
For example - Did Alice take the phone from someone Bob knows? that could change things.
I have made my mind up because it is 100% obvious to most reasonable and rational persons that the outcome is that actually
Bob is the bad guy he has done something observably "wrong". he is the untrustworthy one. He deserves the punishment.
Alice is the victim and has done nothing wrong and deserves NO punishment at all.
I mean the mere fact foxpoop and that other imbecile yogg are saying in this analogy that ALICE is a blackmailer untrustworthy and deserves punishment and BOB is the victim and is deserving of trust. is fucking insane and demonstrates clearly they do not have the judgement suitable for DT.
It really is that simple. Forget what the analogy even represents just imagine this is a real scenario and people are telling you ALICE is a blackmailer and bob is the victim.
You want these fucking clowns dishing out justice here?
Forget what the analogy represents that is their honest assessment of that scenario.
To the other turds here like suchmoon trying to obscure and derail this important point that we have people with this kind of judgement on DT ...you are just making it more apparent that you are net negative trash.
LATER we can get to what the analogy represents there is no point speculating on it right now.