Re: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia
of course i did, but there's like 40 inclusions on my trust list added over a long period of time. i can't recall every single feedback or the circumstances surrounding them. it would make things a lot simpler if you would simply state your claim ("user X is on your trust list and is engaging in trust abuse"). that's what an honest person would do.
Oh so now it's my fault? 
sort of, yes. you are accusing me of including people who abuse trust, but you refuse to say who. that's not only childish but a pretty dishonest form of argument.
the irony of you accusing me of not substantiating claims......
Maybe spend less time talking about the trust system abuse and more time doing something about it. Just a suggestion, not intended as ad hominem.
i'm not gonna drop everything i'm doing this second to pour through ~40 accounts' sent feedback to find the one example you cherry picked. just be honest and forthright and tell me who you are accusing. i'm willing to review the situation.
you've only proven that you make accusations against people while simultaneously refusing to identify who you are accusing. go ahead and substantiate your claim: prove that the feedback you quoted even exists, then i will address it.
if not, it's obvious you're just engaging in another character attack. you are clearly engaging in ad hominem by dishonestly asserting that i don't review people before including them on my trust list. you haven't proven that at all. you are telling bold-face lies, not me.
let's try this in reverse. you're including someone who posts unreferenced feedback like this:
Quote
This guy is just a total fool. Like an annoying housefly he needs to be swatted out of here.
who left that feedback, and do you think that's proper usage of the trust system?
Just start from the top of your trust list and do what you were supposed to do and claimed to have done. Lying is not cool.
when did you prove that i lied? more of your endless character assassinations.
you're telling me to review every one of my trust inclusions now. that doesn't prove i didn't do so in the past.
It's not complex. Don't retaliate with red trust and there won't be any gray areas. Problem solved, now you have more free time to review your trust list. Just an advice, not intended as ad hominem.
it is complex and you trying to reduce everything to black-and-white just shows 1. how unreasonable you are, and 2. that you are incapable of reading:
Quote
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.
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.
i also think theymos made a good point when he said this, which i'm trying to reconcile with my view of how the trust system should be used:
A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)
it seems you are trying to attack users and when they respond you act like you are a victim.
i have only pointed out when others (primarily suchmoon) have engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against me rather than respond to my arguments. personal attacks aren't necessary and aren't conducive to an honest discussion. neither are the sort of intentional fallacies i have been forced to point out over and over. pointing out intellectual dishonesty in self-defense =/= playing the victim, and it certainly doesn't mean i am attacking others. i have had to defend myself nonstop in this thread against attacks on my character. if you perceive that as me attacking other people then i'm sorry, but you are mistaken.
i have made painstaking efforts not to attack other people. i have only argued against other peoples' arguments/positions or fallacies. there is a big difference.
thanks for deleting all context so you could mischaracterize what i said, as usual.
marlboroza accused me of attacking others and playing the victim, when the exact opposite was true. the above post was a direct response to him, conveying that message. nice try acting as if it was about "my feewings getting hurt" though.
i clearly didn't weasel out of anything. i stood by and defended everything i said. you continuing to assert obvious falsities like this is pathetic.
thanks for derailing the entire thread into personal attacks aimed at me. you've done a good job showcasing what happens when someone tries to criticize the trust system.