Quote from: marlboroza on February 21, 2020, 01:03:08 AM

Quote from: Vod on February 21, 2020, 12:30:49 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on February 21, 2020, 12:25:48 AM

Why are you spamming? So which one is it? It is pretty much 1 or 2.

Good Luck!

He can't win arguments so he makes sure he can't lose them either by not finishing them. :/

How many dozens have times have I won an argument only to have him deflect like he is now, that sick fuck.

It is like talking to a brick wall.

In one thread he holds users directly accountable:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 05, 2020, 07:46:45 AM

qwk
LoyceV

I hold all of you directly accountable for his actions.

Then he starts another thread and doesn't hold the same users accountable:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 19, 2020, 06:12:19 AM

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

qwk
LoyceV

Are they suggested inclusions or accountable(not suggested inclusions) then Huh

He invites me to this thread:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 19, 2020, 06:12:19 AM

SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:

~marlboroza

Then he doesn't want me to post here:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 21, 2020, 12:10:54 AM

So now you are so desperate to find ways to attack me

He doesn't even know what is his own topic about:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 21, 2020, 12:10:54 AM

None of those people are in my inclusions.

Fucking prick, he said to suggest inclusions/exclusions (based on his standards):

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 19, 2020, 06:12:19 AM

Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.

Then he attacks me for my suggestions (which are based on his standards).

Yes, it is on topic, although not comprehensively. However, since those are only suggested or optional lists, then lack of complete consensus on those lists does not destroy, or really have much impact if any on the merit of moving to the objective flagging system.

So to focus entirely on a possible conflict of subjective options with regard to the 100 % optimal candidates for those lists, rather than voicing support for the core and most important point, can produce a negative vibe on what should be a positive and cohesive union.

You would support surely this move ? after accepting it would both solve that long list of damaging insoluble problems, and produce far more credible and accurate warnings for members. It is a clear win win situation.

Guaranteeing a persons lists were 100% optimal to ensuring the protection, safety and fair treatment of the entire forum regardless of personality type, and other variables that could be a factor, is impossible. It becomes far less important, when the System design, removes subjectivity, and that system can only be used in a responsible, accurate, and useful manner. You design systems that can not be abused that produce consistency and value.

Consensus on the move to the transparent objective flagging system should be easy to achieve since there is an overwhelmingly strong and robust argument to support that.

Consensus on the optional lists is likely impossible for many reasons. It is not required or essential.

Therefore to focus on the latter is net negative and counterproductive in the full context of what could be achieved here.

I would suggest TS placing a passage of text saying these are my optional and entirely personal lists for your consideration. Do your own research to determine if you consider them useful guides. There may be many different factors that my extensive research has unearthed for each member on the list which can be discussed in detail on another thread and these are dynamic and constantly changing. These lists do not require your complete agreement you should include those you determine are best suited. The move to a transparent objective flagging system will ensure all warnings are left in a responsible, independently verifiable, consistent manner that are accurate and useful regardless. of the member raising the warning and those supporting the warning.

That is just my suggestion, TS is free to do as he wishes of course. I am supporting this movement regardless, due to firmly agreeing with a move to transparent objective standards.