Quote from: suchmoon on February 20, 2020, 08:49:29 PM

I'd call it a hypothesis at best. Not cool to state it as an "established" fact.

what a fucking straw man. i never said it was a fact. it was an opinion.

"established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact.

why the fuck are you creating these useless tangents, if not to distract? to convey what i mean, this is the post you responded to:

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 20, 2020, 08:08:59 PM

Quote from: nutildah on February 20, 2020, 07:08:29 AM

when I say you are in the minority, I mean DT-wise.

so you're just saying "i'm currently on DT1 and other people currently on DT1 haven't net excluded me"?

wow okay, well that's sort of a circular meaningless argument that ignores the whole point of this thread. we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.

that's what we're trying to change. one of the primary purposes of this thread (IMO) is to say that the rest of the forum can have a vote too: you only need 10 earned merits and then you can participate and affect the default trust system by "voting" for objective/fair members and against biased/unfair members.

even people who have been wronged by DT trust abuse can help to remove their abusers from DT. one of the crucial elements is that you must include members as well since a member's trust list must include 10+ users before they can be on DT1.

so people need to do more than just exclude abusers and hope DT1 members do the same---they need to build bigger trust networks (with inclusions) so they can actually affect the DT1 lottery or be voted in themselves.

this is a numbers game. if everyone keeps refusing to customize their trust list, then nothing will change. the same people will keep voting themselves onto DT1 and perpetuating the current system.

Vires In Numeris.

i also appreciate that TECSHARE has provided some reasonable cover for people who want to include/exclude people in the OP. on this forum, some DT members have been known to use their position to publicly/privately pressure other members into changing their trust lists. this culture of intimidation (combined with fear of DT retaliation) stifles honest usage of the trust system.

perhaps OSG could allow us to create somewhat of a "united front", which DT abusers tend to enjoy, but which the abused never have the privilege of.

why did you take the third sentence, completely mischaracterize it as an "accusation", twist my words to imply i presented something as "fact" (when i didn't), and then proceed to ignore the entire post?

i already know why---because straw man arguments are the only thing you know.