Re: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia
which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions? i think that's fairly self-evident and not worth arguing over, but we can agree to disagree. it's an opinion, and i don't mind being associated with it.
Your post where you tried to backpedal from your "millions of board members" claim was predicated on that but then you declared that discussing it is a tangent.
now you're just talking nonsense.
nutildah claimed i was in the "vast minority" here. i understood that to suggest by extension that he was speaking for the "vast majority" of board members, and said so here. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion and repeatedly personally attack me for it, which is incredibly petty. get over it.
and yes, this is a tangent that has absolutely fuck all to do with the topic. there's no reason to write a half dozen posts attacking me personally over this in an obvious attempt to discredit me. your repeated mischaracterizations and petty personal attacks are getting old. you clearly have no intention of discussing the issue at hand.
Ok, fine. I've been advocating custom trust lists for years as have many other users. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory for that.
it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a comment about the current makeup of DT and how the trust system is intended to work. i said repeatedly that i wasn't accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but you decided to repeatedly twist my words into an "accusation" anyway. 3 posts later, you're still trying to attack me for this! wtf?
You might want to review your own trust list to make sure it meets your standards.
i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references. both feedbacks appear to have been left after alleged trust abuse, which raises another important question:
part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.
in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.
@suchmoon, please respect that i'm just attempting to participate in a discussion about the topic. i should be able to discuss trust system standards without constantly defending myself from your off-topic personal attacks virtually every time i post. i am sure you are capable of responding to my position or questions without engaging in ad hominem attacks. i'd really appreciate that, thanks.