nobody needs to fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude any of the people listed. i think that's one of the primary misconceptions naysayers are trying to promote here with cherry picked examples and personal attacks.
Trust abuse is cherry picked example now? Tagging someone for "trolling" is cherry picked example NOW
not sure what you're referring to specifically. i was largely talking about the examples and personal attacks that have been aimed at
me, which i've directly responded to.
It doesn't look like you were from here. But you see,
in order to call yourself this guild member, you need to follow these standards! Why are you ignoring suggested inclusions/inclusions?
There is no inherent hierarchy. Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. Using the avatar below and linking to this thread in your signature is encouraged. Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systematic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:
[...]
SUGGESTED EXCLUSIONS:
[...]
It clearly says, "lets work on these standards, exclude trust abusers and include not-trust abusers". Do you see any other point of this lists? Lists are there for no reason? Hm, principle is also here for no reason?
Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.
4. Users who follow these standards should be included in trust lists.
5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible.
If #1 and #2 doesn't exist, how many of #3 (regularly, repeatedly) is acceptable by these standards?
I want to know OP's reasoning and opinions, is it too much to ask?
suggested does not mean mandatory, that's is a very important distinction.
Suggest, denotes non essential. You appear to be fixating on non essential points and that is distorting your evaluation of the core points being made here.
don't allow personal prior grievances to pollute your critical reasoning capacity. Set aside those shackles for the good of the entire forum. Welcome to the guild.