Quote from: marlboroza on February 16, 2020, 10:56:05 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2020, 10:50:42 PM

Except we aren't talking about getting your feels hurt with words you don't like, are we? We are talking about the fact that the default trust abuses their authority to punish people for speaking when their own feels are hurt, thus making using alts perfectly logical.

I am sorry, but yahoo said be a man/woman and post from real account(please read topic again) and:

Quote

"if i post this with my main account, i'll be attacked" is total bullshit.

I am only proving him wrong and it is not just simple as "you might get tagged". I posted factual info, you two literally attacked me because I posted it from "main account".

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2020, 10:50:42 PM

This is yet another endless example of the kind of the intellectually disingenuous arguments, topic sliding, projection, hypocrisy, and semantics pushed by everyone trying to excuse the abuse of the default trust system for personal interests, or at the very least confuse the situation so much people give up trying to look at it in order to maintain the status quo.

Why are you attacking me again?

More intellectually dishonest projection and attempts to confuse the situation in order to deflect repercussions from the trust system abuse of your friends.

Quote from: suchmoon on February 16, 2020, 11:11:46 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2020, 10:36:08 PM

Who said anything about a squabble? He is objectively abusing the trust system, and he refuses to substantiate any of his ratings, and you use any excuse you can to make justifications for the abuse of your friends while condemning it in others, yet I am the hypocrite.

I don't think I'm justifying abuse by not doing what you're demanding me to do in your conflict with another user. On the other hand you explicitly said that your "standards" don't apply to someone you disagree with (nutildah). I think that's a big difference but let's continue this... uhmmm.... squabble elsewhere as it's veering way off topic.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2020, 10:36:08 PM

What, you mean the top down standard of requiring evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating? That seems unreasonable to you does it? Is that perhaps because you and your friends would then not be able to keep control of the default trust among your small group of nepotistic abusers using ambiguously and selectively enforced rules? Funny, you are free to make judgements about who you include and exclude, but when I do it I am a hypocrite and abusing the trusts system.

Anyone is free to include or exclude whoever they want. I'm also pretty sure I'm free to consider your reciprocal/retaliatory actions in my decision process and I'll definitely make fun of it because it's cringy AF.

More "NO U!". Are you sure you don't want to tell me " YOU MOM GAY!" too just to top it off?

You are justifying abuse by including people abusing the trust system. It has nothing to do with what I demand. That is not at all what I said. Now you need to resort to making straw man arguments as if I was the one to make them, then act as if I should defend myself from your own words. Everyone is free to include and exclude who they like, but if you and your friends don't like who I exclude or include then it is acceptable to negative rate me for "trust system abuse". Meanwhile you toss out a few more "NO U!s"' in the hope no one thinks too hard about the fact that you only want people you choose to be held to their own standards, and that you yourself don't even observe your own standards.