Quote from: JollyGood on February 28, 2020, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 28, 2020, 06:14:29 AM

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed?

Exclusion exposed? What exactly are you taking credit for? What did you expose?

You already have added me to your distrust list and likewise I have you on my distrust list. There is nothing retaliatory about it. In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list. The fact is I saw your trash posting several times over several days beforehand but in the middle of that line of trash posting were the occasional post that was far sensible and relevant than you deserved credit for so was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately your conduct left me with no choice so I added you to my distrust list.

In that thread you allude to (where you became emotionally unstable because I added you to my distrust list) nobody cared about the trash you were spouting then and nobody is interested in this guild trash either.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 28, 2020, 06:14:29 AM

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed? There seems to be a repeating theme of people who get called out attacking my person rather than addressing any of the issues. Could it be they have no argument to stand on, therefore personal attacks are the only remaining option?

There is nothing to address. There are no issues to address here. You have created a thread in the hope to revel in a fake sense of self-importance. Nobody cares about this guild trash you are trying to cook up except your friends from the local language board and a few others that post for the sake of it or to feel the need to stay relevant.

You know full and well that theymos will not be giving you the time of day regarding this thread which was created for your own self-indulgence and maybe if it was a set of guidelines from a user (or set of users) considered trustworthy and likeable by general consensus then users would have flocked to co-operate.

[img ]https://i.postimg.cc/c1XcnXwW/tc1-Copy.png[/img]

So this image shows the real reason you created all this pathetic little drama?

Nobody cares about your ridiculously overinflated sense of self-importance or your equally pathetic ego. You might find a few members of the local language board and a couple of wannabe that have a grudge against most DTs because they were tagged after their little games were exposed therefore they follow you around but they are almost mentally twisted as you, they will dump you the moment they feel they no longer have any use for you.

You still have time, kindly seek medical advice before your case is too far gone for medical experts to help address your narcissistic over-exuberance and fix your mental imbalance issues. Thank you.

Nutilduhh was trying to cast my exclusion of you as retaliatory, but they didn't realize I was the first to exclude you, then you excluded me very shortly after. Of course when I do this it is "retaliation" and is a violation, when anyone else does it it was for "reasons" and is perfectly acceptable. I exposed the fact that you in fact were the one to reciprocate the exclusion. My conduct? You mean the fact that I excluded you right?

For something that no one cares about, you seem to be trying pretty hard to convince me of this.

"In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list."

Begging? You mean this?

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 22, 2020, 11:32:56 PM

The trust system should not be used as a wide net shotgunning device as it is not only ineffective, counterproductive, but serves to allow actual con artists to hide in the noise. The standard of "promoting a known scam" is essentially guilt via association and far too arbitrary.

I just want to make a note here that JollyGood excluded me today after I excluded him. Those of you who have accused me of trust system manipulation and retaliation for doing the same feel free to demonstrate holding to your principles by excluding him.

I am pretty sure that is the only time I brought up your exclusion of me, feel free to prove me wrong with a quote. I don't see any begging or "emotional instability" there, just pointing out more double standards.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 28, 2020, 03:24:20 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 28, 2020, 08:29:13 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 28, 2020, 07:21:05 AM

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

Another good user falls victim to harassment and abuse for doing nothing more than speaking their mind.

I mean... that's certainly one interpretation. Another could be that users simply don't want to take your recommendations on who they should or shouldn't trust. If you had simply left it at the part where you said anyone could opt in as long as they follow the tenets and stopped there, perhaps people may have been more receptive to the idea. Each member could then form their own conclusions on who is and isn't following the guidelines and adjust their trust list accordingly.

But you had to go and "suggest" people exclude the users you don't personally trust. Then you act surprised or indignant when people infer that it looks like you're trying to reshape the trust system in a way that just so happens to cut out all the people you don't like.

I did ask:

Quote from: DooMAD on February 24, 2020, 12:31:13 PM

How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?

And don't recall seeing it answered in your subsequent replies. So I can only conclude you don't actually want those particular users to be more objective, you just want to reduce the impact of their tags by encouraging other users to distrust them. I suppose you'll reply with more yet more indignation and claim that I'm being disingenuous for pointing out that funny little coincidence, but that's honestly how it looks.

Who said people had to follow my suggestions? So what is your point here? That I shouldn't be free to make suggestions for inclusions and exclusions based on my judgement of how the users are using the trust system? Isn't that exactly what custom trust lists are for, and something literally every person who uses them does? This is what I am talking about, the simple fact that I use these systems or have any voice in them whatsoever is presented as some kind of illicit behavior. I am not doing anything different than anyone else using the system, you people are just terrified that some one has opinions that don't align with your own, and others might agree, so you need to characterize me as having some kind of ulterior motives.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 24, 2020, 12:31:13 PM

How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?

It doesn't necessarily, at least not directly anyway. It does however expose their abuse of the trust system, promotes awareness of their behavior, and is a countering force to their abuse by building a coalition of people to remove the authority under the system they are abusing by excluding abusive users. The end goal being that their behavior results in exclusions which either diminishes their ability to use this force within the system, or motivates them to leave more accurate ratings. Is that not the whole point of everyone being able to "vote" using their own custom trust lists, or is this another example of me being up to no good any time I use the trust system as it was designed to be used?

This sounds a lot like your previous circular logic, only rephrased:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 24, 2020, 12:15:40 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 24, 2020, 12:11:20 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 24, 2020, 12:06:48 AM

You seem to be straying from any logical argument now and just projecting at this point.

1) User doesn't like the tags they have been given by other users
2) User proposes changes to the way tags are handed out
3) User benefits if/when they are no longer tagged in a manner they don't approve of

Seems to follow logically to me. Are you saying that doesn't sound self-serving?

1) I hit you in the face for no reason.
2) You propose I stop hitting you in the face.
3) You benefit from not being hit in the face.

Is your proposal self serving? I would say so. Is that wrong or dishonest? Seems like a stretch at best. In summary you are literally using the fact that I am being attacked to discredit my objections to it. You know what that is called? Circular logic.