Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 02:56:35 PM

Quote from: nullius on January 29, 2020, 02:16:03 PM

your downfall

My what now?

If you are too blind to see that you have made a fool of yourself in this thread by defending arrant nonsense with mulish stubbornness, and potentially alienated people who are not me with a public display of rash ~threats, peremptory demands that others recognize your personal feedback standard as an official forum standard ~or ~else, deafening silence when I point to (and even fully quote) the substantive grounds for one of the tags that I am supporting (a trust-abuse tag on OP!), shifting of goalposts with bizarre illogic about trust lemons, and a score of other displays of poor judgment, then it is ill-advised, but suddenly unsurprising for you to top that off with such a too-indignant My what now? as I would expect from someone throwing a chldish tantrum about being caught out as wrong.

And if your reply to my patent olive branch, which I pointedly concluded with a hint to others, is:

Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 02:56:35 PM

I don't really give a shit

...then I cannot but say, I am sorry you feel that way, and express my sincere regret that I wasted hours of my time attempting in good faith to talk this out with you, in public and in private (upon your contact to me and not vice versa). TECSHARE could not have gotten that from me. I would probably have flatly ignored this thread but for you, but for the considerable respect that I had for you, and but for my belief that you would do your deescalation for your own part of a dispute that you yourself not only ~escalated, but substantially ~created in the very second post on this thread. Or that at least, you would agree to disagree, as I have been willing to do all along. You well know that I disagree with your personal standard for tags, and that I discuss it civilly or just agree to disagree if you are not waving ~ in my face.

Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 02:56:35 PM

if someone excludes me over this "pet issue" as you call it.

That which you peremptorily declare an official, quasi-binding forum standard, contrary to all evidence (such as examples shown by Lauda above), is indeed your pet issueyour peculiarly petty pet issue, at this pointand nothing more.

Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 02:56:35 PM

Actually no, let me rephrase that. Anyone who thinks that it is appropriate to red-trust TECSHARE or Kalemder the way you did should exclude me. I don't retaliate with exclusions or red trust so no worries there.

ok

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 29, 2020, 03:45:03 PM

This attempt to manipulate DT was far worse than anything TECSHARE or Kalemder have done, and their trolling was also far worse than anything TECSHARE has done. Despite that, theymos clearly stated that he did not agree with the negatives being left for those reasons.

I tend to agree with this, and it is the reason I haven't left red trust for cryptohunter, TOAA, Thule, or any of the other mega-trolls we have or have had in the past. Being a troll or having a trust list I disagree with, in theymos' words above, "doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person". Grounds for a trust list exclusion? Sure. Grounds for a neutral rating? If you really feel you must. Grounds for a negative rating? No.

If that is your opinion, it is certainly a respectable opinionand I never thought otherwise, as to suchmoons seemingly quite similar opinion. But the question is, do you think that reasonable disagreement with that opinion is grounds for ~exclusion?

I observe that your theymos quote starts with, ...in my view... Certainly, that is important to consider; but it is not exactly as if he were laying down the law, especially when so many past feedbacks by himself and others do not comply with the standard he thereby states.

I further observe that nobody on my inclusions list seems to have exactly the same standards as I dono, not even Lauda; and there are many well-known users, including (hereto) suchmoon, who have been neither included nor excluded by me, because I agree to disagree with reasonable differences of opinion on such matters. (And there are others whom I deliberately neither include nor exclude for other reasons, but that is irrelevant here.)