Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on May 30, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 30, 2020, 11:30:03 AM

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them.

That's the whole point. If someone's ratings start showing up as "trusted" in default trust or my own trust list, and I have no information whatsoever to judge them upon, then I can place exactly zero trust in those ratings. Therefore, I don't want to see them.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 30, 2020, 11:30:03 AM

They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust.

They haven't earned anyone else's trust and they have had no interaction with anyone else on the forum, so why shouldn't other people be allowed to distrust them without you opening a thread complaining about it?

If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.

That might make sense if they had actually left any ratings, but they haven't (except for one, which Suchmoon removed the exclusion for anyway). Again, I never claimed anyone had to trust them because I do, but distrusting them simply because I trust them is not only petty but counterproductive, and is a form of guilt via association and collective punishment. I also never said it wasn't allowed, simply that it demonstrates the petty vindictive motives of Suchmoon.

Quote from: nutildah on May 30, 2020, 02:32:11 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on May 30, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.

Quite honestly I was trying to avoid mixing myself up in another TS thread, but after he stated this:

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 30, 2020, 11:30:03 AM

That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically.

I couldn't help but think of this:

Quote from: TECSHARE on September 10, 2019, 07:31:27 AM

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 30, 2020, 11:30:03 AM

They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum

That's fine -- then you should leave them a positive trust. AFAICT nobody disagrees with the ratings you left for them (well, except for leaving a trust for someone based on your assessment of their ability to "preserve Americas Constitutional rights" Cheesy

)

Including them in your trust list means you trust not only their ability to leave correct trust ratings but that you trust their ability to use the trust system as well. You've added 2 of the 3 to your trust list for no discernible reason when a simple positive trust would suffice.

I put the operative term "considering for inclusion" in bold. Considering is not the same thing as automatically doing it. Furthermore trusting people is not the same as distrusting people. Inclusions are for people you trust. Trust ratings are for positive exchanges. Funny how you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser.

Quote from: suchmoon on May 30, 2020, 03:55:49 PM

I thought TECSHARE achieved his goal with this thread - presumably proving some sort of criminal clown cartel corruption (I just realized there is a "car" in "cartel" so that's solid proof right there) - so why is this still going on.

I don't know, ask your clown friends.

Quote from: amishmanish on May 30, 2020, 07:51:31 PM

Quote from: nutildah on May 30, 2020, 02:32:11 PM

--snip--
I couldn't help but think of this:

Quote from: TECSHARE on September 10, 2019, 07:31:27 AM

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.

He is actually so full of shit. Look at him turning into the ethical preacher at his convenience.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2020, 10:59:29 PM

The point of the trust system is to serve the community,

Such a glaring hypocrite. LOL@ attempt to show ethics. Stuff like "Trust system is to serve the community" doesn't suit him after abusing it to no end with his mutual inclusions AND being a tool in perpetuating conspiracy theories about everything from DT, this forum and to even bitcoin.

Again, you ignore the operative term "considering for inclusion". Furthermore, again, inclusions are not the same as exclusions. One more time, you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser. This is the clown clan way.