Quote from: suchmoon on February 22, 2020, 05:24:58 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 22, 2020, 03:22:12 PM

I hope you all are having fun picking peanuts out of my turds. Just a reminder, a handful of peanuts does not equal a pattern. What is a pattern is obvious with one look at any of the left ratings from any of the clown car riders here so vociferously protesting any changes.

The changes that you're proposing (include some users, exclude some others) are nothing special and probably don't have much of an effect on anyone "protesting" here. The pattern that's emerging seems to show you presenting wild claims, refusing to substantiate them, accusing others of doing things that you do yourself, and denying that you should be held to your own standards.

You would probably have more success if you honestly said "I don't like these people, please exclude them". This cockamamie "guild" just exposes your hypocrisy.

This is unhelpful, largely untrue and quite a nasty summary of tecshares actions. This is misleading at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

His core point is moving to objective transparent standards that he will be held to of course, the lists are suggestions only. You are deliberately trying to discredit his core points by blowing way out of proportion some of the list selections. The list should be a suggestion or starting point for people to investigate for themselves. I don't think it is sensible to expect any member to keep appraised to every tag each member on these lists is going to make / has made and investigate each case deeply.

He would have a serious problem finding accounts that have an impeccable tagging history . He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging. The tag you originally raised as problematic was way more valuable and accurate than several of those left by members that you include or have included recently. You recognize this clearly since you tags are very robust.

The strange thing about you is that you of all members seem to be already adopting pretty stringent objective standards that are aligned with those Tecshare is proposing.

This demonstrates that you know how to use the trust system optimally but are afraid to counter those frivolous ratings that you know should be countered l, and that you have a strange personality that drives you to put appearing smart, funny and semi- cruel above what is best for the forum. Give it up.

Going by your use of the trust system from my initial investigations you should be included not excluded. The strange thing is your bark is worse than your bite. It's almost like you want to talk like a bad boy but operate as a school prefect.

You are not the smartest nor funniest member here, so stop trying to be, and you would be clearly be net positive.
Your sarky and bitter style is okay in very small doses.

o_e_l_e_o is accurate with his assessment. I disagree that pre-emptive warnings could ever be net positive in light of the insoluble problems that they produce. However, if sensible and reasonable consideration is given to both sides, then a workable solution that accommodates and addresses both sets of valid concerns can result in a system that benefits the whole forum going forward.
From what he has said, then I see no reason to exclude him either and would include him on my list.

We need to look forward. Even those that have left frivolous tags can be included if they are willing to operate according to objective transparent standards going forward. Out immediate goals should not be getting out own tags removed ( if we have them) it should be the optimal solution going forward for the entire forum.

Tecshare is clearly being bullied in terms of coordinated character attacks by multiple members. It is not nice to watch at all. I see a member with years of impeccable trade history being treated with no respect and addressed as if he is an enemy of bitcoin and this forum. I am still reading through his post history and freely admit the guy seems pretty inteligent and possesses a robust history of producing strong argument and valuable insight.

I feel that any member subjected to a long period of sustained and at times viscous attacks will inevitably become very defensive. I would not criticize them for that.

I guess it all depends on the atmosphere you want here.
You would reason that a group of people that want bitcoin to succeed and are not trying to scam each other or anyone else could be mature enough to get along or just avoid those that irritate them.

My prime concern is The freedom of speech aspect. Other's view the prevention of scamming as more important. A sensible and well designed system can find the optimal balance.

Going forward, discussing the specific members on the list should be avoided. Their future actions will determine their suitability for either list. So long as you wish to move to a system based upon transparent objective standards and wish others to a adopt those too then you should be included. Each of out actions can determine if we remain.

Abolish tagging and focus level 1 flags optimally.

There is no argument that will stand up to scrutiny that insists tagging must remain in The best interests of the forum. If you disagree then present it.

Case closed , join the guild, or at least support a move to transparent objective standards and create your own lists. I don't think It matters that much, as long as you are honest with yourselves and stand against any that will not operate within The objective standards It makes little difference.

Or present an argument for tagging lemonade drinkers or that guy who called you a twat, or that ass hole who was too Stupid to adopt your opinion on something you view as very important.

I feel this guild will grow with every frivolous tag. So patience is key. Things will not change immediately. This thread will be very very long I expect.

marlboroza has avoided my direct question but continues to fixate on the lists ?