@TECSHARE
after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.
i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.
thanks, onward and upward.....
The lists should be based upon a person's willingness and actions to operate with the objective standards that are clearly optimal for the whole forum. There is no requirement for stress and bickering.
Unless people have been harassing you via PM and threatening you ?
Being " right on the internet" is not what the guild stands for.
There is no bickering here. There has not been 1 single member that has presented any kind of credible argument to retain the subjective and dangerous tagging system. There is only attempted derailing and personal attacks.
If anyone says they are willing to operate and abide by transparent objective standards for creating warnings by default they are exactly the members the guild should be including.
There is really no need to participate outside of that.
If you have been threatened or intimidated ( may be you have not) then you should make that known.
The lists should not be a request to include or exclude, The guild membership should simply be : I will act and behave responsibly adhering to transparent objective standards that ensure freedom of speech is not crushed and that all members are treated equally. Or no I refuse to operate in that way.
That is essentially all that should be evaluated.
I mean if you are now saying that you prefer the subjective as abused red tagging system remains in its current form then yes I think you should be removed.
I don't think people should just say include me or leave me off the lists. They simply say they support objective standards and then their actions are observed to render them eligible or ineligible. Even those that fear open support of the guild will bring them unwanted troubles can be added based on their actions not their desires to specifically join the guild.
The stress, bickering, hounding, threats, trust abuse, merit starvation, ignoring, character assasination and screaming for your ban are sadly the price they are hoping all but a handful are unwilling to pay.
This is why they have been successful for so long.
Actions not requests and promises will be the determining factor, I'm sure the lists will be dynamic anyway. 3