Bitcoin Forum

I was looking through Suchmoon's distrust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-05-23_Sat_05.03h/234771.html) today and a few names stood out to me.

~RidleyReport (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0)
~c1010010 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0)
~HardyGoodsLtd (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0)

The first two users are almost totally inactive here, and users I added to my trust list because of mostly off forum interactions with them. The last user is a reputable trader here and as far as I can tell has zero complaints against him. Is it appropriate to add people to your exclusions simply because some one you don't like includes them? I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil. Isn't this exactly what you have accused me of doing in retaliation multiple times Suchmoon? The only difference is what you accused me of was adding users who excluded me to my exclusions, you have gone a step further and decided to exclude people simply because I included them. That seems rather petty and abusive to me. Feel free to impress us with your mental gymnastics though.

Don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less who includes them but they showed up in DT2 at some point and seemed unfit for it.

RidleyReport posted no trust feedback at all. Has one positive rating from you without a reference and for a dubious reason. "This man does great work helping to preserve Americas Constitutional rights. Thank you!" - what does this have to do with being unlikely to scam?

c1010010 posted one positive for you and has one positive rating from you, both without references from 6 years ago.

HardyGoodsLtd - I don't recall the reasons for excluding this one, seems half decent compared to the usual DT sewage so I have removed the exclusion.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and perhaps try to be less of a conspiratard next time. Or not LOL

No, Dr. Techy.  But you do it anyway, as do many others.   Prove I dislike instead of distrust.

Of course you don't recall, because you simply went through my trust list and started excluding names knowing nothing about them, and you can't think of any halfway decent lie to cover up for it. So people need to earn your permission to not be excluded now, is that what you are saying should be the standard for trust lists? These are all good people which you flippantly slander and exclude because of your blinding bias for me. You don't give a fuck about using the trust system to serve the community, it is simply a toy for you to use to punish people you don't agree with, and anyone who associates with them to fortify your own position within it.

Where did I say that?


I think you're missing a key element of the trust system and that might explain why you're having such a hard time understanding it and keep blaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. I don't claim to be serving the community or whatever straw people you're making up. It's other users who decide whether my trust list, my actions, my opinions are valuable to them or not. Whether those decisions collectively result in a default trust position is completely out of my control unless you believe in some cockamamie conspiracy of a secret cabal controlling DT.

You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up).

The point of the trust system is to serve the community, not to be a tool to perpetrate your vendettas. I am not making anything up. There is absolutely no explanation for those users to be excluded by you except for the fact that I included them. Other people who don't deserve to be excluded being excluded by you doesn't victimize me, it victimizes them, and only because of your petty vindictive attitude treating the trust system like your personal plaything. There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.

You must be really desperate to lie about something so blatant that anybody who cares to look at those trust lists can see right through. There are users included by both of us and there are users included by you that I neither include nor exclude so it's quite obvious that I don't exclude "people because of who includes them". Cherrypicking three users out of 80+ doesn't prove any of the bullshit you're making up about me, at most it shows your bizarre need to be a victim and your poor judgement.

So, you're saying you "distrust me" not "dislike me"?

Really?

How so?

And why would anyone except you want to see the trust ratings of users whom, but your own admission, have had zero interaction with anyone except you?

You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.



You need to learn to read.




I think very little of you as a person one way or the other. Your spastic overzealous use of the trust system is why I distrust you.

Are we playing this game again where I'll never guess what you actually meant and you'll refuse to say what you actually meant?

I can't be bothered to care if you believe my explanation or not. We clearly have different opinions of whose judgement can be trusted.

I said what I meant, you just want to pretend like it wasn't said because it saves you the embarassment of trying to craft a failure of a lie to cover for it.

What you said was false so I thought you'd want to weasel out of it with some other theory but I'm fine with you being simply wrong.

Anyway, what's your expected outcome here?

I said a lot of things, you have to be more specific. I have already achieved my desired outcome, thanks for asking.

I exclude a few that I personally do not know.   I have reasons.


I include a few that I personally do not know.   I have reasons.


Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance  ;D

That is not the same thing, nor the question I posed.

That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system.  You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive.  



Trust is earned.  I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me.  Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?



With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them.  

"Oh, the persecution!"    ::)


 

Weird how it is always the same people over an over again saying things like I am being obsessive as if these complaints happen in a vacuum. No one has to trust some one just because I do, but excluding some one just because I trusted them? You are calling me obsessive? That is pretty pathetic to punish other people for no other reason than you don't like me. Gamesmanship? If I was trying to game the system why would I spend so much time pissing in the faces of the people most able to rank me up within it if I just kissed their asses? Nothing you said makes any sense, good attempt though. I look forward to you working up the nuts to try again soon.

I am taking firm steps towards becoming the most unreliable member of forum history. :D

http://loyce.club/trust/2020-05-23_Sat_05.03h/1003533.html

The point was, if a relative stranger suddenly appears on DT, regardless of who put them there, people are going to check to see if there's a good reason for them to be there or not.  If people arrive at the conclusion they shouldn't be there, it may be the right course of action to distrust an unknown quantity.  Why do you immediately have to turn it into something sinister about who does or doesn't like you?  

You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you.  It's clearly affecting your judgement.  You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing.

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.

This isn't about me to anyone except Suchmoon. This is sad collective punishment by guilt via association and it directly effects me in no way whatsoever other than having Suchmoon's nose lodged firmly up my ass sniffing for peanuts about to come out. They aren't random people to me. 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. This is the definition of gate keeping.

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.

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.

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


I couldn't help but think of this:


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.


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"  :D )

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 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.

suchmoon  and other morons ( such as cycling ) continue colluding and abusing trust system
nothing changed

He is actually so full of shit. Look at him turning into the ethical preacher at his convenience.
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. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247427.msg54516190#msg54516190)

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.




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.




I don't know, ask your clown friends.




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.

Exactly. So how do I know I can trust their ratings? I can't, therefore it is sensible for me to exclude them so I do not see any ratings they may leave.

Wait, what? Did you forget that you are the one who opened this thread, called suchmoon a trust abuser, and demanded they account for it? At no point since these users were excluded over a year ago did anyone start a thread and demand that you account for their inclusion.

You are stretching pretty hard to justify this vindictive behavior. They have left no ratings, what is the problem? Are you suggesting people should exclude users preemptively just in case they leave bad ratings?

No, I haven't forgotten. The point is all of the people here justifying Suchmoon's actions have all demanded I explain my inclusions, and have used the simple fact that I use a custom trust list as "evidence" of trust system abuse. The very point is there is one standard for the clown klan, and another for everyone else.

That's literally exactly what you are doing here against suchmoon.

Was c1010010 your alt account at any point?

Seems TwitchySeal is up to something.
Probably because almost everyone knows how you include people to your trust network lately, it is either out of spite and/or because someone become DT1, hopping they will return favor and add you to their trust networks.

Anyway, suchmoon explained why he excluded some users (read post #2), so why don't you lock this topic as it is resolved?

Again, you need to learn to read.



I have at no point ever had any alternate accounts here as I have said many times. Even if it was an alt, it would essentially be useless.

By the way, I noticed you joined in with your usual hive mind mob mentality and excluded these users too.

6/1/2020 10:27:17 PM    DT2 selection    TwitchySeal DT1 distrusts c1010010 DT2
6/1/2020 10:27:17 PM    DT2 selection    TwitchySeal DT1 distrusts RidleyReport DT2

Way to prove you all don't operate as a klan and meter out collective punishment and use guilt via association.

People can add and remove from their lists as they see fit.   And its up to the rest of us to see what that means to each of us individually and act accordingly.....

the question posed was very much addressed in my opinion;  very clearly and in its simplest form.... as each person:  makes their own choices.


If you did not derive:  I do not see any wrongdoing prima facie.

That is not under dispute, and I agree. However my inclusions and exclusions are constantly under a microscope by these same individuals, and accusations of trust abuse are levied against me for noting more than adding people they do not agree with, followed by demands I explain myself.

My post here about Suchmoon is simply demonstrating their motives are not about building a positive trust system, but about using it as a tool of personal retribution, regardless of what is allowed.

They're alleging that you include people for no other reason than to give them a reason to include you in return, putting you one step closer to your coveted spot on a list. 

I still find it bizarre that you would complain about it after having stated that you do the same thing.


You have a long history of adding users to your trust list simply because other people have excluded them. This has led to you including alts of people that you had excluded. Perhaps you are "under a microscope" because you are supposedly championing "objective standards" when it comes use of the trust system but refuse to employ them yourself. This is a pretty humorous example of said hypocrisy:

https://i.imgur.com/YGWFocZ.png

Here you are telling people to change their profile pic and signature to advertise your "guild" but for some reason you aren't doing the same. It appears you just enjoy telling people what they should do with no desire to actually do it yourself. Try leading by example if you want to be taken seriously.

He often cries about being abused by a 'mob'. He's trying to create one.

Seems like that's really what all these threads are.

False. If you're including sockpuppets who prop each other into the trust system - the problem is more than just not agreeing with somebody.


False again. If you exclude somebody included by me - is that retribution too, or does this apply only in one direction?

I get what you're doing. You're repeating this nonsense as if it's a fact to support your victimhood and that's been a fairly successful strategy for you with this new trust system, since most DT1 members can't be bothered to look beyond your lies. That doesn't really make you not a liar and it only highlights the sleazy way you got yourself into DT. Well, not anymore, but good luck in the lottery next month.

Agreed;  but I myself am willing to take any flack that those inclusions or exclusions may entail...

deserved or not... it happens =/
I do see merit in things said on both sides;  its why I speak.  No flack meant.

Except that is what you selectively edited my quote to say, not what I actually said.


Weird you would choose to edit that part out, almost as if you know it clarifies my statement and you want to turn it into something other than what I actually said.

"A long history" ...k. Once again, you claim to know my internal thoughts, motivations, and intents, and act as if your assumptions are evidence. I am under a microscope because I make a habit of calling out your little clown mafia when they assemble their three ring circus to attack anyone who dares to criticize them, exactly like is happening here. It is always the same people. I am not "telling" people to do anything. I am asking.




They are not sock puppets. They are all real individuals, deserving of respect and trust. Now, even if you were to make the ASSUMPTION they are sock puppets, wouldn't a sock puppet need to you know, engage in some kind of activity to make it a worthwhile sock puppet? As far as I know neither of them include me either, but I haven't checked. I find it interesting your reasons are shifting now after you feel like your previous justifications are not holding up. Perhaps you are just a sock puppet of Nutilduhh?

You know what got me into the default trust list? Being a reliable trader here that people can trust with large amounts of value for almost a decade. You tell me some more about sleazy uses of the DT while you use it as your personal toy for playing out your vendettas and lie about it as you accuse me of the same out of the other side of your mouth.

You actually did say exactly what he quoted.

No, What I said was...



Technically this is what you said. I guess that means it was what you meant right?

That's a slightly longer excerpt of the post he quoted.

The fuck are you babbling about... Getting confused between sockpuppets in your trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247998.0)?


No, your reciprocal inclusions with the Turkish users pushed you over DT threshold - simple math. Doesn't look like you've done any trades with them, not that it guarantees sound judgement to begin with.

No, making a direct reply to your accusations.


How many of the users on your trust list have you done trades with? Oh almost none of them? Amazing how all of these standards only apply to the people you target and never to yourself.

Except I never claimed that having done trades is the criteria for the trust list, you did:


Which besides being hardly relevant is also provably false. Amazing how all these words end up meaning jack shit when coming out of your virtual piehole.

I think its somewhat amazing that he still doesn't understand how the trust system works.

He's currently at DT2 -4: does that mean he's no longer a reliable trader?

Sorry for selectively editing your quote.

Well, he can't be both so dumb and a shrewd trust manipulator, so I think it's the latter. He just thinks that we're dumb enough to believe the excuses. Which we are, collectively, as DT members.


Unforgivable. Three Hail Marys should fix it.

Where?   You got into DT here as a result of a broken system, which has temporarily been fixed.  You officially do not belong on DT. 

If there is another DT system somewhere in which you are a trusted trader, you should post your lies there, not here. 

The irony of this hypocrite's words ^ could drown a whale.

Notice how he can't debate it, despite a promise he would troll me until I died?

Yeah, why would trustworthiness be relevant to a system of trust? It is a factor, not the only factor. My statements are consistent. You are so used to doing mental back flips you forgot which point you were focusing on, not that it matters. Your goal is to make so much noise people abandon attempting to use any logic in frustration and call it a wash, right out of the Vod school of debate. As long as it superficially sounds good for smoothbrains who believe your constant manipulative behavior it serves you.



What excuses? You mean my replies to all of your baseless assumptions, accusations, and lame attempts to manufacture crimes out of normal trust system activity?

Why stop now with your self contradictions? According to you I am both an idiot who doesn't understand how the trust system works and also simultaneously a shrewd trust system manipulator. Or option three, you are all totally full of shit and will say and do whatever you need to in order to attack me regardless of how baseless or lacking in logic it is.




It is about as possible to have a debate with you as it is to debate a shit covered chimp pumped full of amphetamines. You can try, but all he does is manically throw feces.

Are you speaking of yourself in the third person?

Because there is a direct chain of your abuse he complains about in just that other thread over there;   a reference to some illegitimate trust, your subsequent denial of it being illegitimate, then your slander and denigration, and finally your removal of the erroneous and illegitimate trust.


Is this the inability to debate you speak of Vod?

Yep, fire up those projectors. You started this thread and accused me of something that didn't happen. And that's not the only thread where you just make shit up against people you disagree with.

If it didn't happen, why did you remove the exclusion for one of the three people when called out on it? You agreed they didn't deserve an exclusion. What made you exclude them to begin with? Oh right, the fact that I included them, and that is really all it took for you to add them to your exclusion list. That and knowing they didn't have any ability to ding you back with their own exclusion, and no one would ever notice. Now, when brought to light suddenly your standards are more discerning aren't they? Tell me some more about manipulation.

Changing your mind repeatedly on whether to engage me in discussion shows a lack of consistency.  :/

Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it true. At most it provides an insight into how your "logic" works. I don't go through other people's trust lists to find someone to exclude but you on the other hand...


Shall we conclude that you were looking for users to include? :)

But I guess it's one of those magic one-way things.

I am glad to engage you in a discussion at any time. You however have demonstrated more than thoroughly that all you can do is make demands and are totally unable to even attempt to justify your own actions.



Sure you don't, that is why you just magically happened to find these 3 users who have virtually no other interaction with anyone here except for me on your exclusion list. Projecting your own behavior doesn't make it true.

I already explained how I "happened to find" them and since you're checking my trust list you should be able to see that I often make multiple changes during the DT1 shuffle week but that obviously doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, if you stop demanding I justify everything I do with you, that will solve your problems.

Now, can you tell us where you got your pretend doctor degree?

Ah I see! Since you made more changes that proves the changes could not have been related purely by proximity! It makes perfect sense!

Right, we're down to the "could not" standard LOL. Can you prove that you could not have made this whole nonsense up?

I did that in the OP, you just prefer to pretend I didn't.