Bitcoin Forum

Nubbins feels it is appropriate to use his position on the default trust list to attempt to intimidate and silence people for the grievous crime of disagreeing with his opinions/actions in public. This week he has been systematically destroying the trust ratings of several people who disagree with his use of mob action, and also speak up in support of the user WoodCollector. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=392383
Apparently a member of the staff also decided to join in and BAN several of these users for supporting WoodCollector's position and deleted their comments.


Here is a list of his most recent left negative trust ratings:

TECSHARE:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Use caution when trusting this user's judgment"
Reference : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.msg10257046#msg10257046
(the reference is basically him commenting about me, a bit of circular logic and not at all specific)


SodaWarz:
2015-01-21   0.00000000 "Sock. Shill."
Reference : NONE
(Other users such as Mitchełł, jonald_fyookball, BadBear, danielpbarron, & smoothie he is a "provable alt of Woodcollector" or that he is "supporting a scam" simply because he does not agree with their opinions and supports WoodCollector's stated position. I see no actual evidence anywhere for this, just speculation, accusations and mob attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with their speculation.)


poisenrang:
2015-01-23      0.00000000 "Paid shill, do not trust"
Reference : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=864472.msg10237014#msg10237014
(this rating is apparently for posting a single sentence. "WOAHH!!! this piece is so nice! carved so well!")


TerraHasher:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Shill / Scammer"
Reference: NONE
(Other users such as jonald_fyookball, BadBear, Rawted, Somekindabitcoin, smoothie, Rawted again, & danielpbarron  joined in on the feedback abuse, usually citing "provable alt of Woodcollector" or some other accusation of him being a sock puppet or shill. I would love to hear about all this "proof" Badbear has. I suspect it consists of him accepting the speculations of Nubbins and others in his mob clique, and therefore not proof of anything. I have heard the staff here say many times it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove if some one is using an alternate account. This is quite convenient for accusations for use in mob attacks.)


ukcrypto:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Confirmed sock or moron, take your pick"
Reference: NONE
(This is an actual satisfied customer of Woodcollector's. I see now that leaving negative trust for "morons" is now an acceptable standard for a trust rating. I guess half of the users on this forum should have negative tags then.  Another user, jonald_fyookball also joined in on this feedback abuse stating  in his negative trust rating "probably an alt of woodcollector." )


bitspill:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "WARNING: User may be unable to parse simple English text. Exercise caution."
Reference: NONE
(This user was also speaking in support of Woodcollector. Nubbins left a negative at first but then modified it to a neutral. The way that this is worded seems more like an attempt at an insult than any actual information about WHY he left the negative/neutral rating.)


It seems to me there is a very clear pattern of a small handful of closely associated individuals choosing to systematically tarnish the reputation of honest users here simply for having the audacity to disagree with them, as an attempt to intimidate them into silence. I must say I am also a bit shocked that staff would go as far as banning several of these people to prevent them from speaking (including deleted comments). It is convenient that all of these accusations of sock puppeting and shills can nether be proven or disproven. Additionally it has never been considered "scamming" to use an alt, especially when they person they claim they are sock puppeting for is not even proven a scammer himself. This is clearly a coordinated attempt to silence discussion on the topic by a bunch of Nubbin's buddies.

These accusations are clearly spurious and just an attempt to silence any debate on the topic by intimidating and "discrediting" anyone who dares to support Woodcollector's narrative. Nubbins and his mob have done nothing but spew SPECULATION and have never at ANY POINT presented any substantial fact based evidence that Woodcutter, or any of the other individuals he attacked by abusing the trust system ever did anything wrong. Again, it is all 100% speculation. Theories and speculation are not equivalent to proof. As a result of this I am requesting Nubbins be removed from the default trust list (level 2). Canaryinthemine please remove this yet another example of abusive users from your trust list.

Video proof Woodcollector does in fact carve his peices without a laser engraver or a CNC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.0;all
Nubbins's original accusation thread (now shockingly locked): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.0;all
Thread opened by Woodcollector in the interim after Nubbins locked his thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931109.20

No, I have fairly conclusive proof. Whether you believe me or not is of no concern to me.

I would have to agree with TECSHARE's general argument that Nubbins should be removed from default trust list.

From what I could tell during the entire Woodcollector debate was that anyone who spoke in support of Woodcollector or questioned anyone who was giving "evidence" or "testimony" regarding the potential legitimacy of Woodcollector was almost always given negative trust from Nubbins.

There was even one rating (that he has since removed) that he gave someone with a comment of "harassment" and a reference link  to a post in the original scam accusation thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.0;all). I skimmed through the thread and was unable to locate what I think the referenced post was (it could have been deleted, it could have actually been in one of the other threads, or I could have missed it), however it was something along the lines of asking nubbins to provide video proof of his work/business in a similar way that nubbins was asking Woodcollector for proof. This may have been one of the people that BadBear tagged as being an alt of Woodcollector (really not sure) however BadBear has access to a lot more information then Nubbins does, and the negative trust seems to have been left almost immediately after the post in question (making it unlikely he received any actual evidence of them being alts of Woodcollector). There is a very big difference between leaving negative feedback for someone based on speculation (and being right) and leaving negative feedback based on facts you have personal knowledge of.

I would say that what Nubbins was doing was essentially intimidating people into agree with him (or at the very least intimidating people against disagreeing with him). This resulted in people almost blindly agreeing with nubbins more or less the entire time. This is despite that there was varying levels of evidence against Woodcollector (and evidence that Woodcollector was "innocent") over the past several days.

My impression is that nubbins more or less "bused" Woodcollector of scamming via speculation and was able to essentially catch Woodcollector in lies in his response plus the fact that Woodcollector was using likely alts to further his cause. (although the allegations are still somewhat up for debate, as well as the fact that Woodcollector was actually scamming). The original claims against Woodcollector now are very different then what they were when the scam accusation was first opened.

Considering that this effects quite a few people, I think this is way beyond just me believing you. This is especially true considering that this wave of negative feedback is completely reliant on the premise that WoodCollector is a "scammer". Many peoples reputations have been destroyed over this alleged scammer, and once more it is not at all clear WoodCollector is a scammer. All I have seen presented against him is 100% speculative with no solid evidence. Is there any specific reason why you can't release this "proof"? If you are unwilling to disclose it really it is nothing more than just another accusation. Given the fact that it was likely you that banned several of the people here involved which you also left negative feedback for, I would think it would be prudent for you to share your evidence. Right now it looks like you are just another part of the mob action to silence people from speaking out about the subject.



Shifting standards are always a pretty strong indicator of a witch hunt or a hit job IMO. Suddenly they are scrambling to come up with new reasons why WoodCollector is a "scammer".

The neat thing about Trust is that not everybody understands what it really is, or how it really works.

Let's take my trust page, for example. There are several red negative reviews of me under the "untrusted feedback" section. Ostensibly, this would be a Bad Thing, because Trust is a points-based system and more points equals more trust, right? Wrong.

In fact, Trust is not a points-based system, but a way of linking reputations across a network of people. Thusly, people can see the negative reviews that have been left for me, check the reference links, see the trust of the users who left those reviews, check THEIR reference links, etc. This is very powerful, because it allows you to view the broad behavioural strokes of everyone involved in the situation.

I am, in fact, not affected in any fashion by the negative reviews left on my profile, because any user who views them is able to uncover a vast amount of information surrounding the reviews in question, as well as a vast amount of information surrounding my own behaviour on this forum, right back to the start, and come to their own conclusions.

Those who have received negative ratings from me should, if they understand the Trust system and its use, be wholly unconcerned if my accusations are baseless, and vocally critical if they are true.

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system  :D

Wow more crying and whining by TECSHARE.

Surprising? Not really.

Did you and Goat grow up together? You both appear to operate in the same manner.

 ::)

Your logic is glaringly absent, and your sales pitch on why this is not a big deal is completely warped. I don't think you are fooling anyone. You have demonstrated lack of self control, willingness to abuse trust for personal gain, unwillingness to admit your mistakes, willingness to abuse the trust system multiple times, willingness to rally mobs without any chance for the accused to present their own evidence, extreme childishness, and blatant disregard for the community, the forum, and its users. Its time for you to go.

The reason he should not give his proof is because doing so would reveal what other scammers can do in the future to avoid this kind of detection. Withholding proof is the lesser of two evils.

---

The others who have left negative feedback for the above potential alts should remove it if they are only relying on BadBear's word. If they have seen such evidence or have seen other different proof then the ratings would be appropriate. If they trust BadBear's word about the ratings then they should add BadBear to their trust list so anyone that trusts them will also trust BadBear's ratings (if their trust depth is set deep enough). This is one drawback of not providing such proof as it limits the number of appropriate negative feedback ratings of scammer alts

Being in the default trust network means your feedback is artificially given higher weight than others, so yes it is concerning if the accusations are baseless.


Removing someone from his trust list is not abusing anything.

This is because you have not received any negative ratings from anyone on the default trust list. They are "untrusted"
I don't think you understand how the trust system works. You are not on default trust list because CITM gave you positive feedback, you are on it because he added you to his trust list. The two are suppose to be very different and distinct actions (however for CITM they are one and the same)

Fair enough, that was cheeky.


Incidentally, I just realized that the negative feedback I left for TECSHARE actually *removed* him from the default trust list.

I guess that's why we're all in this thread... ::)

I'm going to sit back and see what everyone has to say about this, but I'd like to say that I will be saddened and disappointed if I'm forced to remove any of the ratings I've left other users as a condition of remaining in the Default Trust list.

Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)

The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.

I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed

I appreciate TECSHARE standing up for someone even though I disagree with them. All I think is this could / should have been done without all the mud slinging and anger.

Woodcollector seems a fraud if you ask me. The threads about them have shown they're misrepresenting their work. I don't see any direct need to remove anyone from the default trust list at this time.

TECHSHARE was removed from default trust months ago (he complains about it all the time - his signature is even about this incident). You are in default trust because CanaryInTheMine added your name to this page (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust). TECHSHARE is off of default trust because everyone that had previously added him to their list on the above page has removed him.

It is possible for a scammer (or someone with negative trust) to still be on default trust, although it is very rare this will happen.

Exactly. Negative feedback is if you think someone is a scammer, or that they are likely to scam. Negative feedback is not for "Use caution when trusting this user's judgement".

> "Shill or moron. Probably not a good idea to trust either way. Negative feedback left."

This isn't what negative feedback is for.

It is apparent that Nubbins does not understand how the trust system works or it's intended uses.

It would probably even be a good idea to make people pass some kind of test/quiz before "officially" being on default trust

I missed that, along with the other post it's obvious he doesn't understand it, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse. I agree with koshgel.

You say that, yet you left nubbins this negative trust:
"Leaves inaccurate trust ratings (eg Bitspill), asbuses the trust system. "

Good lord, please stay on topic and stop discussing wood in here.

Trust here is indeed significantly different from the OTC web of trust, as I've realized.

I feel as though there are some unspoken rules floating around here regarding when it is appropriate to leave negative or neutral feedback. Perhaps it would be useful to have some form of guidance as to when each is appropriate?

WC is a great example -- TECSHARE still thinks I do not have the proof to leave a negative rating against WC, but I of course think that I do.

I would not leave neutral feedback for a scammer, because if everyone only freaks out about the red/green under avatars like it seems, neutral feedback will never be read by the noobs it's supposed to protect.

If I leave negative feedback to warn noobs (so they'll see without clicking the Trust link, something foreign and new to noobs), the trust link goes red and people start making meta threads about me.

Maybe the solution is to keep the trust LINK but hide the automatic display of the SCORE under people's avatars? That way, people can still easily check trust, without having their initial perceptions tainted by what may be only one negative rating.

It seems like people think I give negative trust to those who disagree with me, but in fact, I gave negative trust to those who seemed duplicitous or otherwise suspicious in their words and actions (like the guy who ignored 10 pages of arguing to say "nice work!", or all the socks).

I left TECSHARE negative feedback because I felt he was acting in a manner that called the accuracy of his judgment into question. Given the several witch hunt threads TECSHARE seems to be running, I don't think this is unfair of me, and would be interested to hear disagreement on this point.

Is this page really a problem big enough to warrant a prosecution? ::)

https://i.imgur.com/5jUBvRm.png

IMO a neutral feedback is more appropriate. Poor judgement doesn't mean untrustworthy. Someone who has 'poor judgement', throws tantrums can be trustworthy if they honors all their deals and keeps their word.

What if they also slander you without evidence to back up their claims?

EDIT: This is just as serious an accusation as anything else being discussed here. I take my reputation seriously, and request you provide proof of me "demonstrating" willingness to abuse the forum for my personal gain. Without such proof, I'd like to ask the slanderous comment be removed.

Agreed.


You're deflecting. That was a response to undeserved negative feedback, saying it's now deserved because of the response to it is a failure in logic.

"Personal gain" is where the logic fails. I have nothing to personally gain by leaving TECSHARE a negative rating (he has purchased goods from me in the past!), nor do I have anything to personally gain by leaving negative ratings for socks and scammers. In fact, leaving negative ratings leaves one open to rating retaliation -- as has happened to me. I don't do it for kicks, and I don't do it to further my own dealings; this is why I take offence to the statement.

Furthermore, I fully expected that I would lose business in the future as a result of this fiasco, but called out WC's scam regardless. Now I've got a bunch of negative ratings and hate threads, as I expected would happen. Not much of a personal gain.

This kind of thing has me worried for future merchants more than anything, particularly me since I haven't even sold anything yet. Can I expect the same kind of foaming at the mouth back and forth responses from people who look at my work? While I think it's always good to keep an eye out for scammers and the vigilance of the majority of Bitcoin users is fantastic, letting a mob lynch anyone who sneezes funny is not only unfair on a lot of newbies also does set my paranoia off and makes me wonder what the people doing this have to gain?

Sure, you may get quite a few guys being dodgy fucks and get lucky, but what's going to happen when you pick on the wrong person? I hope Open Bazaar gets plenty of updates because I'm getting genuinely worried about this community, there's nothing worse than a violent mob that thinks they're infallible.

And yet, when Vod negs me with the baseless accusation of my account being "possibly hacked" you don't exhibit the least bit of concern, much less remove his default trust.   ::)

I don't think you can expect any foaming unless you're acting in a highly scam-probable manner. Nobody's foamed at or mobbed me for trying to sell goods yet, but I heartily encourage people to ask hard questions if they feel something about the way I conduct business doesn't add up.

Why do people keep talking about mobs, anyway? I opened a thread, a bunch of people made conclusions and acted accordingly. You're making it seem like I went around knocking on doors trying to get people to join in.

What do I have to gain by calling scams?

What I have to gain is a marketplace where people can feel safe, which benefits me, as a seller.

If scams go unchecked, the forum turns into an unsafe place to do business, and I stop making money here.

If/when I pick on the wrong person, I'll eat my hat, like I said in relation to this whole WC fiasco.

I think BadBear's point is that you can't defend your original feedback on the basis of a feedback he left you afterwards. There's no forward causality.

I wasn't defending my feedback on that basis, I was defending it because it's how I felt (and still feel).

I was also, separately, pointing out that saying "nubs neg-rates people for personal gain" is incorrect and therefore slanderous.

I can see why you might conflate the two ("What if..."), but they're separate thoughts. My apologies for any confusion on this point.

Ok Badbear. For the sake of argument, lets assume that SodaWarz is an alt of WoodCollector's ( I believe this not to be true but for the sake of working this out logically...). So assuming he is an alt of WC's, is this itself evidence that he is a scammer? It seems to me your basis for leaving the negative rating is still consisting only of Nubbin's speculative accusations, and the whole business of him allegedly using an alt is secondary. Using an alt itself is not sufficient grounds for leaving negative trust alone, regardless of this supposed proof which you can not share. You wouldn't leave a negative for a user who is not scamming people simply for using an alt would you?

So then I ask, based on what evidence do you conclude WoodCollector is a scammer? Even if you have "proof" he is using an alt (I have seen staff here repeatedly say it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove alts), what is the basis upon which you declare that he is in fact a scammer? Surely revealing this will not jeopardize some super top secret method to bust scammers.  If there is no proof he is a scammer, all of these trust ratings are inaccurate and simply an attempt at slandering WC and anyone who supports his story.

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

IMHO, a Neutral would be good enough.

If WC has an alt account that he "sells" his coin(s) to then that alt account posts and says "Nice coin, excellent, would do business again."

That is scummy/scammy behavior.

Hence why he would be a scammer in that regard.

WC is shady already given his multiple misrepresentations on this forum about his work etc.

"fake reviews" is once again solely relying on the fact that he is either an alt or a scammer, neither of which have any proof being presented about it from anyone, just tons of accusations and speculation in mob format.

the fake reviews rely on the fact that they are alts of wood collector. In your previous post you said that for the sake of arguement you would assume they are his alts.

Regardless of how good WC's work is, if he is using his own alt accounts to tell others they are satisfied customers when they are really not is scammy. It is very similar to buying trust.

can't we all just get along.  seriously these trust wars are getting out of hand.

many have suggested different proposal to fix or remove trust... so why not another one,

i propose trust be modified as follows..
before you deal with someone you open your trust "comment-able" for that individual. 
once a transaction occurs the users can leave each other trust.

this way no randoms can just leave trust for people they have not directly dealt with.

Now you are twisting my words. For the sake of argument doesn't mean I agree. I disagree. I think WoodCollector has absolutely no alts. "for the sake of argument" means lets put that premise aside for a moment and examine his evidence for calling him a scammer on its own right independent of the alt accusations. Literally EVERY TIME there is conflict on this forum some asshat comes out and claims some one is an alt of some one else, this is probably the single most abused and unprovable accusation on the forum.

Right. But if you were to assume they are WC's alts (I know you disagree but lets say that you were shown proof), wouldn't you say that giving yourself fake reviews is something that you would consider scammy?

Maybe if there was some actual proof of this... but there is not. All we get is basically we cant tell you because of "national security". I don't find this at all convincing, furthermore there are a lot of people on this forum that are engaged in trust farming using alts and they almost never get negative feedback. Clearly this all revolves around the initial accusation that he was using a laser engraver, and no actual solid evidence of this has been presented, just speculation after speculation endlessly. Convenient how this is set up so the burden of proof is set upon WoodCollector and not Nubbins to provide sufficient evidence of his accusation.

Well I guess it boils down to if you trust BadBear enough to believe that he has personally verified they are one and the same. I agree, however I think it is much more difficult to prove trust farming then it is for an admin (who has access to things like IP addresses, payment TXIDs that pay for evil points, time users logged in, what threads are being looked at (? - I think this is a feature of SMF), ect)

I think this is speculation. I also think he has gotten much more lazy with his alts and they are acting much more like alts/socks IMO (almost to the point where he is now trolling).

This is not at all speculation. Who would have even started to try to play "scambuster" mall cop sifting around looking for any reason to speculate on endless topics regarding WoodCollector if it weren't for Nubbins's original accusation? Again, it is a simple task to accuse anyone of using alts to discredit them, and conveniently there is no way to prove this either way. THAT is what speculation is. Just a bunch of wannabe detectives overly confident in their "scambusting" skills.


WHAT IS THE PROOF? I SEE NO PROOF ONLY TONS OF SPECULATION!

I agree that the majority (maybe even all) of the evidence against WC is speculation, with the exception of him using alts to further his cause. I do trust BadBear enough to take his word for it that he personally saw proof that the alts of WC are in fact alts of WC. If you didn't trust BadBear then maybe you could ask theymos to look into it and see if he comes to the same conclusion.

The proof is the fact that you are willing to abuse the trust system to silence people who are proving your accusations incorrect. This serves you by you getting to preserve your reputation at the expense of others by not having to admit you were wrong after starting a mob riot against him and other users. This is clearly self serving.



BadBear is unwilling to provide this "proof" and I guarantee you Theymos doesn't care. That leaves the accusations standing only as that, accusations with no evidence.

If there was a big enough of a dispute about the alts then he may intervene to give his opinion on them being alts. BadBear might be wiling to share the evidence with other Admins who he trusts who can weigh in

I see no proof...  :D

Obligatory reading (http://trilema.com/2014/what-the-wot-is-for-how-it-works-and-how-to-use-it/).

I'm not a court/judge. But I do judge (I'm not a monk either). I have watched the whole Woodcollector episode unfold. I have seen the pictures and read what people pointed out. I have seen the video. I have drawn my own conclusion.

You're fighting based on your principals (I assume). I know you have a problem with the trust system (that's not hard, the system is imperfect and it shows). But do you really believe that Woodcollector is an honest and skilled craftsman? I'm asking you straight, do you think that Woodcollector did not use a laser to etch their pieces?

Of course not, but that doesn't matter because others have already stepped in and said very clearly you are abusing the trust system. Your ignorance is not a defense.




I do believe WoodCollector is an honest and skilled craftsman, and I make this conclusion as a craftsman myself. I do not think WoodCollector used lazers or a CNC mill or any other automated system to produce his work. I find it asinine that people are willing to ignore a much simpler explanation for it but rather defaulting to endless theories and constantly shifting speculation and regarding it as proof. Why again is the burden of proof not upon Nubbins? Making accusations is not hard... anyone can do it without any fraudulent activity needing being involved at all by the accused party.

IMO most of these people here are just so jealous of the level of skill he has, and the amazing income he makes with his skills, they can't stand it, and can't possibly believe that this could be true. 90% of the people here have never even whittled a stick let alone done any serious craftwork. This forum is filled with techies and economists, not craftsman or artists. None of you have ANY expertise on this subject and this ignorance shows.

Yes I am so jealous of his skill level he has in taking clip art off the internet and "hand carving" it into a piece of wood.

Even though most of the tools he uses are not really hand carving tools...more like hand crafted/milled.

 ::) Yup I am so jealous.

Oh and BTW WC has not shown/proven how he got the stencil imprint into the wood before his video even started. (looks lasered to me).

Wait, this forum is filled with economists?  ::)

Hey now, I've been at the wrong end of a pointy stick enough times to tell if it's hand carved or not! /joke

Since you gave your opinion it seems fair that I give mine too.

1) The pictures that were shown on the forums show poor cuts
2) The patterns on his works are very detailed and (near) perfect
3) They admitted to having used an image they had no rights to
4) The video they posted does not demonstrate the same detail that is in their other works
5) There are some apparent shills to back them up

I'm pretty sure that if the case went to court they would not be convicted based on only this. They would probably get a warning. Also they did deliver their works to the satisfaction of their customers.

But in my opinion they're misleading their patrons with their statements. Because of 1) if think they're overstating the quality of their work. Because of the mismatch between 1) and 2) (one shows little attention for detail and the other an high attention for detail) I think there's something fishy. Number 3) is a minor one, but funnily enough the point that would most likely lead to punishment because that's the way the justice system rolls. The final number 4) is disappointing, since they came out to proof something but ended up actually proving nothing. Finally I did not see conclusive proof of 5) and though it seems pretty obvious I'm not really considering it - I feel the other points carry enough weight for me.

All that tells me the works they're selling here are not top notch. Nothing that would make me get my pitchfork out and fire up the good ole torch though. Hey, they may still be greatly skilled and just doing bitcointalk on the side with low effort jobs.

TECSHARE, have you ever met WoodCollector in real life?

1) It is a video in the middle of the process. Yes it would have been best if he posted video from the beginning and end instead of the middle. This is him not doing a very good job with videography, not proof he is a scammer. You seriously think he just staged that video to try to fake hand carving skill? That seems like a pretty elaborate con to me, beyond realism.

2) And? So he is supposed to reproduce a work that he gets paid thousands of dollars to do usually within 24 hours and manage to also in that time upload gigabytes of data of the video? Are you even examining the logistics of these irrational demands being made?

3) No, he didn't admit to using an image he had rights to. He used a LICENSED image, and he never tried to hide that fact. Additionally he MODIFIED the image, meaning that according to the law it is AN ORIGINAL IMAGE. This is what is legally defined as a "derivative work", meaning by law HE MADE THE IMAGE and has rights to it. I am a professional graphic designer and I am well aware of copyright laws, you have zero room to argue this point.

4) This is just you repeating the same points over an over as in 1 and 2. See my answers for 1 and 2.

5) Again this is 100% speculation. Just because people choose to back him up DOES NOT  make them shills. There is absolutely no proof of this, just more theories stacked on top of each other in a lame attempt to give the original baseless accusations weight.


You are correct in stating this would not be enough in a court of law. You know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF!!!

 ???

Can we please stay on topic in this thread?

Maybe you should talk to your mob if you don't like the off topic discussion, but you are right, this thread is about your trust system abuse.  I have messaged Canaryinthemine and asked him to remove you and referenced this thread. Waiting for his comment.

This does not address the poor cuts on his pieces as is seen on the many pictures of them. Also it's not beyond realism at all, considering the profits they're making they are likely to invest a bit if they feel it can secure their business for longer.


Again, my point is about the pieces he sold, not about the video. See point 4 for comments about the video.


I'll just quote them:


This is regarding the video they provided. Finally. With less effort they could have made a short video hand carving just a small detail that he hand carved before in one of the coins he sold before. A small letter with serif was suggested. That wouldn't have taken this long. Why go through so much extra effort with less result?


Agreed. I actually discounted this point in my original post. I just added it cause others keep bringing it up, but it is weak and not needed.


There is no conclusive and compelling evidence. There's enough shady behavior to be wary of though.

Edit and PS. Woops, I am horrible off topic too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29l1Bg4fcn8

This thread has gotten significantly off topic. It is not about WC or any of his potential sockpuppets. It is about Nubbins and his abuse of the trust system (it may be ignorance however ignorance is not a valid defense to breaking the law).

Nubbins has over the past ~week used negative trust to intimidate people to agree with him. He did remove negative trust against some people who stood up for themselves however others were likely afraid to disagree with them out of fear of the potential negative trust they may get.

To allow this to happen, or to not speak up about this is going to set a horrible precedent. The fact that Nubbins was right does not matter. The fact is that he used his power as being on default trust list in order to get people to agree with him.

It has been argued that if Woodcollector was put out of business then his own business would benefit. This creates a clear financial incentive for him to want people to agree with him.

Yes, nubbins has been a bit eager with his trust. They shouldn't have all the negatives he did.

It is up to the people that have them in their trust list to decide if they still trust Nubbins' judgement. Personally, I'd rather see that Nubbins learns about how to use his trust properly than having him removed.

If anyone has a serious problem with Nubbins' judgement then they should exclude Nubbins in their own trust list. There's no need to wait for other members to take action.

Also I feel a topic like this would have more chance of success if it were posited different. The confrontational title (it's actually a command?) probably did not help the OP's case.

i miss MP.  what a huge ass but quite a character.  was he and his pr chick perma banned?

No.

Wait, you messaged him AGAIN, or you're still waiting on a response from the first time? Lel.

Someone give this man a medal. If you don't like me, why in the fuck am I on your trust list?

Off-topic, but here's a WoodCollector image that he forgot to scrub the watermark from. TECSHARE, why do you continue to stand up for this thief and liar? How many lies before you give up? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.msg10278112#msg10278112 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.msg10278112#msg10278112)

EDIT: Reddit chimed in too... https://www.reddit.com/r/Woodcarving/comments/2tendk/is_this_guy_scamming_the_community_with_laser/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Woodcarving/comments/2tendk/is_this_guy_scamming_the_community_with_laser/)

You are by default. That is the point of this thread to change you being on everyone's trust list by default.

Well maybe the point of the thread should be to change Default Trust so it doesn't suck in precisely the way that pisses everyone off.

Why not chime in here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0;all (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0;all)

It would be much easier to abuse trust in the proposed system (I did voice my concerns in that thread).

His concern is not that he sees your trust ratings, it is that other people see your trust ratings by default and as a result may be negatively (or possibly positively) affected to be able to conduct business as a result of your ratings.

Well, my concern is that I outed a scammer who milked twenty thousand dollars out of this place since Guy Fawke's Night, and in return I get a bunch of socks PMing me photographs of the outside of my house and TECSHARE the bully starting one of his vendetta campaigns.

I suppose that's all okay, though, because I'm the big bad neg-rate monster who didn't consider everyone's feelings!

Christ, you people.  ::)

After having some time to reflect, I agree with others in that my negative trust rating of TECSHARE was inappropriate. I have replaced it with neutral feedback that relates the situation in a less undiplomatic manner.

releasing/using personal info is a big no no on the forum and can get a user banned... Do you believe TECSHARE is behind the release of your info?

Let's not jump to conclusions here. Yes, TECSHARE is defending Woodcollector. So possibly they wanted to document some evidence about this case. Maybe that's why they created a Woodcollector folder on their site?

Just having that folder means nothing.

Aww poor victim the Nubbins, starting a mob attack that backfired when you attacked way too many people (actual individuals not socks). I have no control over how others choose to interact with you, and frankly you should have expected this reaction as a direct result of all the horse shit you have been slinging trying to destroy people's reputations simply to entertain yourself and save face by not admitting you were wrong.

Your right, what a bully I am for daring to have an opinion in opposition to yours in public! I was having a discussion with you, you are the one with the vendettas striking out at anyone who dares to point out your accusations are bullshit. Nice refractory double speak. Just accuse your opponent of what you are doing. Pretty stale propaganda technique. Keep it up, maybe some one will believe you are victim here and not the perpetrator.


RE: The domain

Back on the actual topic of having Nubbins removed, I see Nubbins has modified his attempt at intimidating me into silence to a neutral rating now. What about UKCrypto? Did he photoshop that image of being in Vietnam now? Nubbins was very clearly systematically accusing then negative rating anyone who dared to disagree with his accusations against WoodCollector. This demonstrates without a doubt he is willing to abuse the trust system to win petty flame wars he started. He does not belong on the default trust list.

BitcoinEXpress is defending Nubbins?!

BitcoinEXpress and Nubbins seem to have a closer relationship than either one is letting on.

UKCrypto has now proven himself to not be an alt. If Nubbins was wrong about him, is it not highly probable he is also wrong about the others?

He's likely wrong about UKcrytpo but probably not about the others. It's pretty obvious the other two are alts /shills just from their behaviour and BadBear will have some other evidence such as IPs tying them together.

So now I'm to be removed from Default Trust because I changed my rating of you to a more accurate one?

Haha. Fuck you. Lock this thread, you embarass yourself.  :D

BadBear has refused to offer any evidence, he just said "I don't care if you don't believe me." If Nubbins is willing to lie and abuse the trust system to try to intimidate myself and UKCrypto, why wouldn't he be willing to do so for the others? IMO BadBear left his rating based on Nubbins false accusations and just doesn't want to admit he may have been mistaken.

Considering that WC has said he uses a proxy service, an IP correlation alone doesn't prove they are alts of each other (as you well know, but don't let facts get in the way of your accusations). An IP correlation could EASILY happen simply because they use the SAME PROXY! This is not proof of anything.

I have seen zero evidence either of them are alts or shills. Just because some one stands up for another user does NOT make them an alt or a shill, and it is RETARDEDLY EASY to sling that accusation at people because it is basically unprovable either way, but the accusations are certainly useful for trying to intimidate and discredit people.

I can guarantee you BadBear didn't base his feedback just off another member's, and it doesn't have to be just down to the same IP. If they both use exactly the same browser and operating system then that's good enough evidence in this case (and he may have other evidence I'm not aware of). Also, you're right that people sticking up for another isn't conclusive evidence alone but it certainly arouses suspicion, especially when they type the same way and use the same insults etc. More than a coincidence is it not?

Considering we are basically pattern recognising machines it's fairly easy to spot alternate accounts. Although, a normal user may not have the proof which you ask for I'm almost certain Badbear would, however that doesn't mean he can give that information away either to an individual or publicly. Anyway, why would Badbear lie about having information? It wouldn't benefit him in anyway, it could only damage is reputation if found out.

To be fair if  they are all using Windows then it doesn't really help the case, or even ubuntu. If they are using another operating system then it could be more obvious. Same goes as the browser. Most users probably vary with both operating system and browser, I know I've logged in on about 5 different operating systems and browsers because some browsers aren't easy to setup in some distributions. But, you are right if they all match then it does raise suspicious that much more.

Now you are back peddling from your IP "proof" to say that because they both used an operating system and browser that billions of other people use that this is now proof.   Suspicions....
That is ALL anyone lodging these accusations have, 100% SUSPICIONS.

I would speculate that he knows at least partially because the "tor tax" was paid from addresses and/or inputs were connected. WC had said that he connects via tor so it would make sense that his alts would sign up via tor as well

YAY - MORE SPECULATION! Just what we need.

if this was the case then would you agree that they would reasonably be the same person?

I SPECULATED..... look at the size of the catfish I cought....

To me, nubbins did an actual PSA, converting his free time to a public warning. Nubbins did the right thing. I think we need more people like him in this community. We all have some special knowledge on different topics. Sharing it will help the community in its entirety.

Now on this specific case, I think the evidence presented was quite convincing. You can't really say that it was a baseless accusation. Bitcointalk seems to have pretty decent understanding of who is a bad guy and who is not. This community usually comes to the right conclusion when appropriate evidence is presented.

Everybody doesn't use the same versions of operating systems or browsers though. It's not just a case of oh he uses windows and firefox therefore we've caught him. The admins can see the IPs and detailed info and users are vastly different and if two people are using the same proxies/tor and logging in and out from one account to the next it is blatant.

If the two alt accounts go from using:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_2) AppleWebKit/600.3.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/8.0.3 Safari/600.3.18  
      
&

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.91 Safari/537.36

Both to

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0

Which is the same as WoodCollectors then that's pretty damning evidence.

I suspect - oh noez suspicionz - that WoodCollector took over one or both of the accounts at some point and the switch would be obvious to the admins especially if they went from using their own IPs/computer(s) to the same connection / computer WC does. If that's the case the evidence builds up pretty fast, but of course only BadBear knows what dirt he has but I trust his judgement and like you said he has no reason to lie.


I'm not back peddling, you'll just find excuses and invent conspiracy for everything based on nothing but speculation yourself. Notice I said such as ie that was just one example. People can think they're smart and anonymous using proxies and tor but if you use the same computer/browser it's not hard to tell especially when there's other evidence against you. It's called putting two and two together and it is very hard to hide this stuff from the admins unless you're really smart about it. Whether you want to admit it or not - which of course you don't because it doesn't suit your agenda - BadBear knows more than you and I and if he's left feedback it's for a good reason.



I agree, but it seems the only person who doesn't is tecshare and WoodCollector's alts. Surprise surprise.

That's exactly what I meant with the pattern recognising. Although, for some reason I just assumed most people would be up to date on their web browsers, because of the auto updating software which normally comes with the browser, unless you choose not to update. Although, with Tor browser none of this applies as it appears that every user is using the same operating system and browser version. I would put money on Badbear having enough suspicion/evidence.

Besides, Badbear has gained enough experience over time and probably can identify them before gaining as much information as that.

I don't know how he did it but BadBear previously figured out someone's alts a while ago and they all exclusively used tor (I figured out a few of them from various other evidence but he found a load more). I even made a joke he should join the NSA  :D but maybe it was through cookies or something else only the admins know about.

Yeah I was aware of most of the things which can be recognised. Although, I did based my replies on Tor rather than a VPN. Thanks for the link though, I wasn't certain on a few things.

Experience I suppose. He probably can identify a lot of people without even knowing the technical process of it all.

If Nubbins had simply presented his suspicions and left it at that I might be willing to agree he is providing a service. Instead he decided it was appropriate to turn it into a personal matter by going around negging WC before he even had an opportunity to respond, and also attempted to intimidate others into not speaking out about it by leaving negative trust ratings for anyone who disagreed with his accusations. This is destructive, not productive, and completely relies on the fact that Nubbin's suspicions are correct, something that an impartial person doesn't do before all the evidence is presented. .

It is clear that for whatever reason, be it to harm the reputation of competition, or just to entertain himself, Nubbins has clear intent to damage the reputation of WC and anyone else who agrees with him.

What evidence EXACTLY was quite convincing? Because I don't see any evidence, just a bunch of people speculating about what COULD have happened and ignoring perfectly logical explanations with contrary evidence. The fact that he didn't make a video that satisfied the peanut gallery is just evidence of poor video making skills, not evidence of his guilt. This again is just another suspicion.

You called nibblins competition...... where have we heard that before

I dunno, maybe that he hasn't provided anything that can show he can carve? Sanding with a dremmel doesn't prove anything other than he hasn't adequately demonstrated what he's claiming he can do which is pretty good evidence in itself. The video he posted was like asking someone who is claiming be a master painter to prove they can paint replicas of the Mona Lisa and as proof they show you a video of them crudely drawing a stick figure with a marker pen (one where the outline is just being traced as well). WC could have closed this case very quickly if he wanted to but surprise surprise he just has a whole lot of excuses and tried his best to try weasel out of it hoping people would buy his bullshit with the weak evidence he presented and guess what? It didn't work.

Aw, thanks, guys!

Rotten apples like WC ruin it for everyone. TECSHARE's chin-wagging doesn't affect me, because I know I did the right thing.

Don't mention it. Harassment is the last thing you'd need you receive for doing something good. :)

How long has it been since this whole shitfest started, what like 8 days? So he produced a video that did not meet the stringent and constantly shifting standards of the mob right away rushing to try to get something out. It is a fair amount of work to stop his lifes normal activities, set up a proper camera setup, carve the piece from start to finish, then a very long time to upload the high resolution video. Meanwhile the whole time everyone is already making their conclusions even before the first video was posted. That is not "weasling", that is just everyone jumping to even more conclusions. More video is on the way. I suggest people suspend their judgement until then.

So you are now the spokes person for Woodcollector.....   Woodcollector is a sham , that would make you a sham.   You have been cought with your hand up woodcollectors ass with woodcollectors video on your domain. I understand why you dont want to pull your hand out now... All you are is SMOKE AND MIRRORS as you  try to save your woodcollector puppet.... I have read your entire 3 years worth of BullShit....  Something just doesnt Smell right..... So just leave your hand right where its at.....


This Paragraph makes you a sham.....  after reading all you Bullshit.... I think Im going to nickname you ...Jim Henson because you have been running one hell of a muppet show......

YOU ARE A SHAM..... plain and simple....

I haven't kept up with it.

Why was he removed from the Default Trust List?

Link?

I didn't remove him but a couple of the others did.

TECSHARE losing all the e-battles... Should level up with some more personality points first, and try again

This is just a lie. I never accused Theymos, Badbear, Saltyspitoon, or you of trying to "ruin my online life" (a phrase I never once used ever). VOD abused the trust system to attempt to intimidate me into silence because I was speaking out about his own trust system abuse, and pointing out that the staff let him do this over and over, while people such as myself are removed over the most minor of individual incidents.

This happened after I was removed from the default trust by Canaryinthemine and Saltyspitoon, in salty's case he was given a directive from his EMPLOYER (Theymos) to remove me. When your employer asks you to do something, that is pretty much an order. If you want to see why I was REALLY removed from the default trust you can read about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.0
(here is another post for you to necro and off topic post all over smoothie)

Does Thymos ever come in here and shed some light on a lot of this? It seems a lot of this could just come to an end if he would just come in and leave some type of input. The only people really speaking are those for one side or another which is more of a bias to the topic and the people involved. Is there no mediation?

He has almost certainly read the initial request and probably a bit of the discussion of this thread, if not all. He does give his input when it is needed you can verify this by visiting numerous meta threads. To be quite honest this particular instance doesn't need to be addressed by him. If he feels the need to pitch in I'm sure he will.

I don't see anything about conspiracies in there, but I am sure hearing a lot about them in this thread. What is my supposed alias count now? 3, 4? It is what cowards around here do when they have no other arguments. Accuse you of something you can never disprove.

This has been covered many times, to address the last 10 or so comments since this is about Nubbins and not Tecshare, so this thread can get back to what the OP is about. I was not "ordered" to remove Tecshare by Theymos, I recieved 7 Pms from different people telling me to check out the thread about and consider removing him from my trust list. Theymos too pmed Canaryinthemine and myself the meta link, asked that we read it, and said, "I'd recommend removing Tecshare" with no underlying threat or anything else. There was not a threat of removal from Default trust by Theymos to Canaryinthemine or myself.

That said, @Bitcoinexpress Tecshare is not jrretirement nor do I believe he is Woodcollector.

But isn't this kind of a nudge in that direction? That statement alone would linger in your mind before you even took a look at the meta thread that was sent from Thymos. It could be said that this aided a decision before facts were even placed in front of you.

But but but.... If Theymos (your "employer") recommends you basically have to obey... Right right? The whole premise is ridiculous to begin with and while it's good that SaltySpitoon came out to explicitly state this it is ridiculous that they had too....


You must be aware that your supposed alias count is officially over 9000, right? Your actual aliases... Are not really relevant for me.

As much as I dig the sarcasm, its not really the direction I was going. I did not say that they had to, just that the idea of anothers judgement could alter the direction toward the end result, from a psychological standpoint that is. This is just how we as human ideology works. How things are stated or presented have more impact on us and this is seen in every aspect of our lives from TV to Radio and what ever else you want to throw in the mix.

If I was simple minded maybe, I made a judgement for myself, which I've also addressed 50 times. Its not that in my opinion Tecshare is untrustworthy. I'd still trust Tecshare with my money in a trade, I however removed him from my trustlist because I don't trust him not to get upset and make an irrational unproportionate reactions to situations (My decision, not Theymos/Canaryinthemine/etc's decision). My positive feedback for him for past trades stands, I just don't trust him to leave appropriate feedback for others. Armis was mildly pestering his sales thread, no moderator responded either because they didn't feel it necessary, or they didn't get around to reading it, and the situation played out from there. As I've said in the Remove Nubbins/Vod/etc etc threads in meta, I don't care because Nubbins/Vod aren't my responsibility, as I don't have either of them on my trust network. Its not subjective enforcement of the rules, its just that moderator's don't have Nubbins/Vod on their trust lists, so they have no reason to respond. (besides Badbear who has addressed his stance on Vod)

That makes a lot of sense. I in no way meant to make it seem like you were simple minded or the sort. The way you outlined it makes this less personal and more of a honest decision. I understand this a lot better now and its by reading threads like this that allow a better understanding for me on the trust system and even your post alone kind of makes a lot of points in this thread moot when it comes to the removal of persons from default trusts and what not. Thank you for your response.

Sad thing is he has said it before, multiple times.
Tecshare ignores it all and says the same thing over and over, and by now most have given up responding to it (incident in question was almost 3 months ago, and he attacks those who do). This style of argument is an informal fallacy commonly known as proof by assertion, typically used by politicians, lawyers, and ad agencies. Sadly it is fairly effective, since most of us are kept busy with the forum.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

I don't think Tecshare is doing it intentionally though, maybe he is, I don't know.  I think he just has such a high opinion of himself (wish search wasn't down, I've seen some doozies that make this obvious) that he can't bear to think someone may have chosen to remove him from their trust list, and instead chooses to believe it's a collaborative effort by *the man* to damage him. I've seen it many times in various forms, this type of denial is kind of sad to see.

Nepotism requires no collaborative effort, it is perfectly organic. People who your pals get a pass, everyone else gets the shaft. Simple as that. There needs to be no coordinated conspiracy. Additionally, you say "I" keep bringing it up, but who brought it up here? Wasn't me, it was people trying to discredit me using that as some sort of supposed proof.

I keep repeating myself, because staff repeatedly use words referring to my viewpoints such as "conspiracy" to make my assertions seem wild, theoretical, and unrealistic in an attempt to marginalize me and keep people from critically examining my words, and they never stop repeating themselves either at any opportunity.

For about the 1000th time, I don't give a shit about being on the default trust. It is a horrible, destructive, completely ineffective system. If I did why didn't I just remove my rating for Armis so I could stay on it? If that is what I wanted I could have had it. My problem is with the way the staff CLAIM to handle trust disputes and how they ACTUALLY handle trust disputes are two very different things. People like VOD, and Nubbins are allowed to shit all over everyone's reputations, often destroying them in one post, for very clearly personal reasons OVER AND OVER again, but the fact that supposedly abused the trust system once was enough for Theymos himself to rally other staff members, and have me removed.

As far as Salty, Theymos pays his bills. Why would SaltySpitoon not follow a directive from his boss? It is fairly obvious that if anyone was "asked" to do something by their employer, not doing so could potentially lead to loss of employment, if not other issues. You can claim up and down you weren't "forced" to, but your exact words to me were "I am not risking my reputation for you" demonstrating to me you very clearly had something to lose simply by not removing me. So in the end, is that a choice or a mandate?

You're right for once. It's absurd that new users start off trusting people they know nothing about. The whole thing is designed poorly; the "btc risked" value should be replaced with a general score; it should be a "Web of Trust (http://trilema.com/2014/what-the-wot-is-for-how-it-works-and-how-to-use-it/)" and not a "Web of Trades." I trust least of all, the users with hundreds of ratings about petty trades; it's almost as though you were buying ratings from each other.

There should be no such thing as a neutral rating; if a rating isn't negative, it's positive. Neutrality is the absence of a rating. Making a rating is like placing a bet, with your reputation instead of money. Old ratings carry more weight than new ratings, just like how early bets are weighted higher than late bets. For example: a negative rating for pirateat40 in 2011 is more valuable than one placed in 2012. It's easy to call someone a scammer after everyone has already agreed he is a scammer. It's risky to call someone a scammer when everyone else is still blind to his deception.

Or better yet, just use the #bitcoin-assets WoT (http://wiki.bitcoin-assets.com/irc_bots/assbot).

I don't have anything to do with this but doesn't the below post explain the bolded above?

TecShare..    Why do you NOT have woodcollector on your trust list??????

It is very glaring that TECSHARE is butthurt.

 ;D ;D ;D

RE: Keyzer Soze


Theymos, Badbear, and Hilariousandco took it upon themselves to lead the rallying cry to remove me.... even though they were not the ones who added me to their trust list, and they had no reason to respond, yet they did.

PS, back to the actual topic of this thread, why is it ok Nubbins has still not removed his negative trust rating for UKCrypto even though he has proved beyond a doubt that he is not an alt of WoodCollector? Isn't this just more punitive punishment using the default trust system to punish people who dare disagree with him?

No I didn't. I had absolutely nothing to do with you being removed, but it was the right decision. You just didn't like that fact and because I was vocal about it.

So you weren't posting over and over in that thread chastising me? Sure looked like you were. Also you personally contacted Canaryinthemine to ask him to review the thread did you not? That does not sound like no involvement to me.


PS, back to the actual topic of this thread, why is it ok Nubbins has still not removed his negative trust rating for UKCrypto even though he has proved beyond a doubt that he is not an alt of WoodCollector? Isn't this just more punitive punishment using the default trust system to punish people who dare disagree with him?

What are you, his dad? It's none of your fuckin concern. Mind your own business.

Are you WoodColector's dad? It is none of your concern, but you sure as fuck made it yours. You made your behavior my concern when you abused the default trust system to neg me in a pathetic attempt to intimidate me. I guess you'll just have to deal with that now.

 ::)

Bitcointalk volunteer police force.

Don't shoot, officer!

hilariousandco did not post in the thread until he was responding to a PM from you soliciting support in the thread in question. I believe that he didn't actually post in it until you were officially removed from the default trust network (he actually posted immediately after BadBear confirmed that he excluded you from his trust list -  thread in question (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all)). As to hilariousandco sending a PM to CITM, I have no idea however it wouldn't matter because by the time he removed your name, you were no longer in the default trust network. BadBear was essentially telling you that your trust feedback was inappropriate very early on in the thread.

Ironically BadBear has excluded Nubbins from his trust list, so even if CITM does not remove him from his trust list, it will only take one more person that is trusted by DefaultTrust to exclude him in order from him to be removed from the default trust network. Since CITM has more or less demonstrated that he is not interested in removing Nubbins from his trust list, the only way that he will be removed is from trust exclusions.

I love this thread, it has become.....

http://i59.tinypic.com/nwd0ti.jpg

 ;D

Said the Bitcointalk mall cop. Isn't that what you claim you were doing? Scambusting? Just keep accusing me of what you do, maybe some one will believe it.

Bitcointalkcops == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivgx5x1dob8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivgx5x1dob8)

(This is a joke, don't get mad anyone...)

I PMed Hilariousandco and asked him to speak on my behalf because I had cooperated with him more than once in the past to prune people he had found to be untrustworthy from my trust ratings. I assumed that this was evidence I cared about the default trust list's integrity, but according to him I was asking him to "shill" for me. This is not getting involved? This is adding to the shit slinging simply for asking him to speak in regards to my past behavior. Of course that didn't stop him from slinging shit for page after page then following me to other threads to do the same.

He didn't chime in until after you were removed though. I would say this would be evidence that he had nothing to do with you being removed. Just because he publicly supported you being removed after the fact does not mean that he actively tried to have you removed.

There have been several examples of people getting removed from the default trust network after abusing their position after you were removed and after trust exclusions were put into place.

I'm not inclined to remove nubbins because I trust him AND because he corrected his actions.  Basically he wasn't 100% aware of how trust operates, but once he understood it, he took appropriate actions.

It makes no sense to have a 1 strike policy especially if someone wasn't malicious about it and took corrective actions.  Most users still do not understand trust.

I along with others, patiently waited on Tecshare back then, to correct his abuse, he didn't... so he got removed.
I'm pretty sure I was the last one to drop him, even though Tecshare begged me not to.  I waited plenty of time for hot heads to cool down, however Tecshare demonstrated that he won't do the right thing at the end.

Yeah, after you were removed, which I had nothing to do with. I was just offering my opinion, just one you didn't like.


Again, no I did not.


Just read what you're saying because you're contradicting yourself here. I only posted in the thread after you contacted me, only you didn't like what I had to say on the matter. It's also funny how you're ok with co-operating with me and others by removing people from your trust / helping scambust but the moment it turns sour for you everybody is a trust mafia mallcop scam buster with nothing better to do. And I wasn't following you around, you were just derailing every single thread you posted in making it all about you, and guess what you've done here?

I think it's best to stop posting in this thread... It's clear that it doesn't matter what you post, insanity will continue... So maybe considering not responding is better, at least that's what I'm doing now. Unwatched and disabled notifications on this thread.

+1. I may also suggest also looking the thread since it seems to have exhausted its purpose.

+1. Enjoy, guys...

so much butthurt in this thread by TECSHARE.  ;D

It's funny because it seems like he can't even admit it. We all can see right through his little facade of putting up a front to deflect people seeing his butt hurt.

His video series will no doubt continie but what this is proof of is that he knows his way around wood which people have said he does not, he clearly knows what he is doing.

The issue was not "if he knows his way around wood"...it was "if woodcollector could HAND CARVE at the level of detail in his pieces" not that he could just sometimes hand carve parts of a piece.

Pruning people from my trust is not the same as "scambusting". If you had not have PMed me about it would not have even known. You have demonstrated yourself to be very personally emotionally involved in my activities for some reason and have demonstrated repeatedly your inability to control yourself and act in an unbiased manner. First of all, this was my OP to begin with, second I didn't turn this into being about me, your mob of ahole buddies did. First by abusing the feedback system to try to intimidate me into silence about their abuse, then by repeatedly bringing up past incidents as if it is evidence of something or relevant to this OP.

Everyone is always talking about how free speech is supposedly so carefully protected here, but when it is an unpopular opinion everyone has no problem joining a mob to try to destroy peoples reputations in order to stop them from speaking.

Enjoy the video series. I am sure you will find plenty more to speculate about and find new reasons to shift your standards of evidence yet again.

Free speech unless I disagree with it, then it's a "mob" trying to destroy reputations.

Since when is hilariousandco supposed to not have an opinion and be completely neutral in all circumstances?

Mods/staff are humans too and should be able to express themselves equally with every other user on this forum.

And once more THERE IS NO MOB only your perception of a MOB that you created in your own imagination to support your conclusions/biases.

exactly ^  ::)

And we've come full circle. Now I'll go back to enjoying some WC youtube magic.

Said one of the mob leaders. You rejects don't give a shit about scammers. This is 100% about you idiots jerking yourselves off for your own entertainment.



Your right, I am such a bully being one man being attacked by dozens of people at once and not having the decency to be intimidated into silence. BTW in case you haven't noticed I haven't used the trust system to fight any battles related to this, but don't let that mess up your attempt at discrediting me. BTW how does me pointing out the mob harassment activity count as me stopping free speech? I am interested to hear how me having an opinion some how stops other people from having opinions.


P.S. funny how all these new accounts have opinions about me all of a sudden now that they are being proven wrong with irrefutable video evidence.

I agree, there are an unusually large number of newer accounts participating in both this thread, as well as the many WoodCollector threads. This fact tends to discredit all sides.

I would also say that it is very concerning that Nubbins is giving negative trust to people who are supporting WoodCollector in any way. I do think WoodCollector is a scammer, however that should not prevent people from speaking their opinion that they think he is honorable or otherwise not a scammer. This is essentially what Nubbins is doing, he is giving negative trust to almost anyone who supports WoodCollector, which puts fear into anyone who is considering to support him.

I do believe that Nubbins did not previously know how to properly use the trust system, I would still say that he is abusing it by installing fear into anyone who has an opposing opinion then him. I do think he should be given the opportunity to learn how the trust system works, however I do think he has received that opportunity and has still not changed his ways.

There is no reason why people should not be able to freely speak their minds without fear of having their account ruined with a "Warning: trade with extreme caution" tag attached to their account just because they have opposing view of someone who happens to be in the default trust network. 

Thank you, that was probably the first on topic post in the last 5 pages.

Your welcome. i also messaged Canary to at least look at my post and to plead with him to make his trust network be made up of people who have more experience trading, and detecting scams, as opposed to people who he simply has traded with one time.

+1 - He left me trust saying i was either a sock or a moron.... If that is not abusing the trust system what is?

Pot, meet kettle!  ;)

Well I personally think you are likely a sockpuppet of WoodCollector however there is honestly not evidence to support as much, there fore negative trust is not appropaite

Yep - i am woodcollector, who lives in USA yet manages to make videos of himself working on wood whilst travelling around SE Asia. You sound just like EyesGluedWideShut.

http://youtu.be/1EdmNAoF1Is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_Ww3Ajhr74

PS - Yes I know i said woodcutter, I get hungover sometimes and forget my own name.

This is not the place to be discussing the possibility of you actually be an alt of Woodcollector. Bringing this possibility up is only going to distract from the conversation, so please stop. There is evidence both ways (the youtube video(s) is evidence that you are not an alt of Woodcollector, but there is also evidence otherwise).

Sorry who bought this up me or you? (see below your recent post) What evidence is there that I am an alt of WC? I see none, and you wont find any either. why state in your original post there is not any evidence now you say there is, you change your mind more than my wife. I am just a happy buyer, having bought and continue to buy his work, people can't accept that so automatically i must be a alt.

Well I personally think you are likely a sockpuppet of WoodCollector however there is honestly not evidence to support as much, there fore negative trust is not appropaite

Lol oh really?

Irrefutable evidence of what? That the guy can dick around and not show his "hand carving" skills on the high level of detail his other pieces sold had?

Lol  ;D

I think the unique problem here is that WoodCollector didn't  "hand carved" his original pieces , and advertised as "hand carved".

Yes you are right , indeed I've seen all the videos and at the end my personal opinion is :


He didn't hand carved nothing , he always used dremel & other  tools.

---

These are real hand carved pieces :

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Rxbu4FY4Q

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQVo4oEizJA

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw9sYKMXQbI

For the record, here's someone carving Christian Orthodox icons. The video also includes various related images

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW4EYu97tjk

Carvings found in churches are often very detailed.

Sorry, I should have added the caveat "irrefutable if you have a functioning brain stem". Regardless there are more videos on the way and here you all are STILL leaping at conclusions before all the evidence is in. Whatever is most entertaining to you, even if it means harassing users daily for weeks. If you had anything better to do we wouldn't be seeing multiple daily posts from you or the 4chan brigade. Just admit you are here to entertain yourself, and you could give a fuck less about anyone or anything on this forum.

Don't you have anything better to do than whinge incessantly about this? That's all you contribute to this forum now aside from bumping your own listings. You've got to be either trolling yourself or absolutely deluded if you think butchering a piece of wood to create something I'd be mildly impressed by a teenager making in his High School woodwork class is 'irrefutable evidence'. There seems to be only a handful of people who are buying WC's bullshit including you and two of those have been confirmed to be alts of his. Until he actually shows a video of him actually carving the coins he claims to be able to do nobody in their right mind is buying his grossly exaggerated claims. The only thing he's proved so far is he's an amateur woodworker. Amateur being the keyword here.

Exactly , I think everyone of us can make the same "hand carved" works... It is obviously that his pieces not worth ~ 14 k dollars.

There is still no video evidence of the intricate, fine details being hand carved with the same level of precision as apparent in the sold pieces.
Given how much time has gone by, there's a non-trivial possibility that any forthcoming video will have to be confirmed that it is in fact WoodCollector performing the fine level hand carving, and not someone that was paid off. I really don't want to re-open this discussion, but the facts are that he posesses Harbor Freight tools which he pictured as being the tools used for the intricate detail carvings (most being completely inappropriate for that type of job) while talking about posessing very expensive tools as part of an astronomical yearly income, and at least one community of experienced wood workers attesting to the fact that the pieces have the tell tale signs of being laser engraved, not done by hand. In a recent post regarding a comissioned piece, WC has seemingly omitted all references to "hand carved", just mentioning "carved" ... make what you will of what that is. The recently posted videos do nothing to prove what is being actually requested and the preponderence of evidence thus far, circumstantial or not, point to him having mislead his buyers. There is simply no excuse for not having presented the solid defense after all this time. These issues just scratch the surface.
So I just wanted to write all that to point out that this issue is far from having been settled in favor of WC. I say this as having no dog in this fight whatsoever, it just happens that one of my recent past careers of mine involved evaluation of evidence, so this topic is still close to my heart.
I believe that any and all well deserved negative feedback would still be appropriate. What's left to discuss now is which of it is or is not warranted.

I know that is what is funny about those who defend WC as in his video clearly he is not "Hand carving" the entire thing as he started his first video with the stencil lasered on to the wood, which is laughable to call "hand carved".

"Tools" like my "hand carving" machine I used?  ::)

Nice insult sling ^....real mature buddy.  ::)

Retort with insults. Yes lol

Class act.  :D

Anyone want to make a poll guessing when TECSHARE will leave the forum or be perma banned at some point due to his questionable actions of being butthurt and eventually get banned for something worth getting banned over? Much like Goat did in June 2014?

Yes we can make the same pieces/works with the GO button.  ;D

Don't you have anything better to do? Aren't you staff here? Don't you have staff things to do like harassing noobs who don't know the rules (because you refuse to post them anywhere)? Your right, I totally didn't introduce hundreds of users to this forum, why should I get any redress when users abuse the trust system to attack myself and other innocent users? Also hundreds of satisfied users who have traded with me confident in knowing they will get what they pay for. What possible value could that add to this 4chan like environment?

You and the mob are judging people guilty until proven innocent based on the brainless accusations of that wildebeest nubbins and the peanut gallery of drama queens. The fact that you can't see whats going on here demonstrates your inability to separate reality from shit slinging 4chan drama. But hey, why look at reality when the bullshit affords you another opportunity to show how emotionally involved you are with anything I do. After all, why be a mod if you can't bully people into shutting up when you don't like what they have to say right?

hahahaha cant believe this is still going on and that idiots are still saying woodcollector "hand carves" his pieces they are blatantly lasered prior to him playing with his dremel sander for ages..tbh it was good scam call out by nubbins otherwise idiots would still be buying extortionate priced items that are not what they say they are and should cost next to nothing to make

We have enough socks around here to fill a sock drawer. I guess the trolls are hedging their bets and using alts so they don't have to eat as much shit when the rest of the videos are released.

i know its hilarious.. someone should make a book of these sort of things from here

Too bad only 3 dudes with 20 names each would be interested enough to buy 1 each.

Nubbins has now replaced his negative trust for me again, completely based upon critical words I spoke about him. The excuse the first time was that "he didn't know", what is his excuse this time? If this does not demonstrate he does not belong on the default trust I don't know what does.

"I removed my previous negative rating of this user in the interests of fairness and accuracy.

In return, the user has decided to continue engaging in mean-spirited, vulgar ad-hominem attacks against me, calling my actions "brainless" and referring to me as a "wildebeest" without provocation of any sort on my behalf.

Obvious vendetta/grudge/anger issues. Avoid this user like the plague. "

There was no provocation, except your continual abuse of the default trust system in an attempt to silence people who speak words you do not agree with. Lets not forget that part.

Yet, you decided it was a good idea to replace it after everyone moved on thinking no one would notice. You are still leaving a negative rating based on my criticism of you, not untrustworthy activity. This is a clear abuse of the default trust system by nubbins to attempt to intimidate those critical of him into silence.




He corrected his abuse, and then replaced it again. You say he was not 100% aware of how trust operates (not a defense), but even if it were HE DID IT AGAIN! What is your excuse for not removing him now CITM?

Historically slander is not (by view of theymos) a valid reason for giving negative feedback. That was made applicable during the time when neutral feedback didn't even exist.

Historically, the views of a thermos (http://s.b-a.link/?q=thermos) have nothing to do with how a Web of Trust (http://wiki.bitcoin-assets.com/wot_and_reputation) works. But I've been told by a moron (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020) that this site doesn't use a Web of Trust; so what do I know?

You go around leaving negative ratings because you disagree with people's opinions. I don't think your word counts for much. Also, the topic is why Nubbins should be removed from default trust, not your lack of knowledge of the trust system.


Back on topic: Nubbins also thinks it is appropriate to obsessively review my recent post history, and then use the trust system to comment on my discussions in "Politics & Society" because some of the topics are controversial (thus an easy method of slander placating to those with opposing viewpoints). Now it is ok to use the trust system for arguing topics in "Politics & Society"? There is a reason trust ratings are disabled there...

Lol, there are people that take the 'trust system' on this forum seriously?

You can't tell us that when you see red under someone's name, you are not deterred the least bit? It puts people off IMO...

The negative trust does make me click to see why. I will still trade with them though..obviously not sending first though  :P

I think seeing -ve trust score also may induce to always use escrows to deal with such users.  ;)

I know you guys love talking about me, but this thread is about how Nubbins abuses the default trust system.

(note: Notice how none of the off topic posts are being removed from this thread? Funny how that works.)

I think you're right. The "trust" system on this site is supposed to be used to make scammers appear to be trustworthy. Nubbins has abused this by using it to make a scammer look bad. I'm very surprised he is still on the default list.

ON TOPIC:

So have you been successful in convincing anyone other than yourself that Nubbins should be removed?

Does the original accusation still stand?

If so can you outline why without all of the conspiracy theories of staff persecution?


~BCX~

Nubbins is at it once again, now leaving me a new negative trust rating for "lying" along with a slanderous post along with it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=969863.0

Why is Nubbins still on the default trust list? He has abused it 3 times now in order to attack myself as well as others in a sad attempt to try to silence criticism of his abusive behavior.

There is no point in bringing this back, Wood Collector was a scammer and accounts which support it are probably sockpuppets except bitspill(maybe). If there is any other trust abuse by nubbins, please point it out for me, I may have missed it.

The feedback he put on yours wasn't irrelevant. When I read the thread, I couldn't find suspicious activity from him. He sent you message regarding the mistake and you have paid the amount he asked too. Now what's the cause for 'negative trust feedback'?

   -MZ

I didn't bring this back, he did by leaving me yet another negative rating. You would like some evidence of his abuse? See the OP. There are plenty of examples here right in this thread. The simple fact that he left WC a negative rating before he even had a chance to reply is evidence he never cared about facts, but started out with the intent to harm WCs reputation. (there is still no proof he was a scammer BTW, just accusations and speculation followed by mob action) Additionally he left ratings for people who did little more than support Woodcollector. Some of them for posting just a single sentence!

The trust system is not supposed to be a tool for silencing opposing viewpoints, and it is a convenient unprovable out for him to simply accuse anyone he left negative ratings for as an alt. The trust rating he left for me is an abuse of his position of the default trust, even if you believe his endless excuses for his abuse are "relevant". The trust system is to be used for marking scammers. I didn't lie about anything, he is just slandering me further and using his position on the default trust to retaliate because I spoke out against his abusive behavior. People on the default trust list in the past have been held to much higher standards because the ratings they leave hold much more weight, and he has shown himself to repeatedly be willing to violate those standards.

Hmm but the trust system is not moderated so you should contact/talk with nubbins. Only him can remove the negative trust, good luck.

People on the default trust list do have their trust ratings moderated, so no, that is not completely true. Furthermore I am arguing that he should be removed from the default trust for his abusive behavior, not that his rating should be removed necessarily.

The trust system is not staff moderated.

Just because some members communicated and made suggestions doesn't mean that staff moderates trust. Other than blatantly lying about the trust system being moderated do I need to mention again that nubbins is not in Default Trust's trust list?

Still I wish you good luck with your vendetta. Same for nubbins by the way.

It is not a lie. Theymos has personally nuked my trust ratings by adding me as a trust exclusion in his trust list because of a single trust rating I left. This not only makes me not trusted by him, but anyone who trusts him (it cascades down the entire default trust list). So even though I have tons of positive ratings going back years, and at least 2 people added me to their trust list, if they also use the default trust, my ratings are negated and it is like they never trusted me. This is just a backdoor system for quiet retribution from the staff that is more destructive than a simple negative rating.

Nubbins is on the default trust level 2. I have no vendetta, I am simply defending my reputation and calling attention to his abusive behavior. If you noticed Nubbins decided to open up a new thread suddenly along with adding a new abusing negative trust rating for the 3rd time. I was under the impression this was done, but clearly Nubbins would like to again address the issue (by abusing the trust system and slandering me).

Tecshare... This is how I see you acting....When I read your posts about default trust.

http://youtu.be/mao-N-LLGYc

I think CanaryInTheMine should be removed. His trust list is a big one(it can help too) but almost all people in his trust list are those who have left a positive trust feedback in his profile. Some time ago, he has pruned his trust list but more has to be done.


It is 'Admin' moderated. Admins can remove negative feedback of other people but it is done on very rare occasions. Theymos can contact CanaryInTheMine or the persons in the DefaultTrust list who trust Nubbins to remove him.


Like TECSHARE told, he is in level 2 and the default level is 2 in all accounts. So he still has the power.

    -MZ

Techshare, you intentionally create drama where there is none just so you can bring up your theories and complain about the issues you have with the trust system, staff, and forum members. You yell in every one of your posts by typing capital letters. Do you see anyone else doing that? Your theory of people being silenced by the default trust system is irrelevant. You're a perfect example of that. So when you have a valid argument, do you think with the way you're acting you will get any support from the general consensus?

How exactly did I create drama? By having an opinion other than what is popular? By being attacked for pointing out the abuses that are rampant here on the forum? Perhaps "I" created this drama when Nubbins abused the default trust to try to keep myself and others from pointing out the flaw in his logic and behavior?

The "way I am acting" is in defense of my own reputation, and is the only means I have to bring attention to the rampant systematic abuse happening on this forum. If I just kept my mouth shut and let these people continue unchallenged, exactly what good comes of it other than them just getting what they want and being allowed to continue their abusive behavior?

You guys can't help but keep trying to make this about me by constantly attacking my character, yet somehow in that same breath you are saying I should not point out how these abuses have been perpetrated. Quite frankly I do not care what the peanut gallery thinks, I want the patterns of abuse here to be documented, and I know for a fact there are people who support my actions, even if they are too concerned about preserving their own reputations from being attacked for speaking up about it publicly. I am done allowing all the hard work I put into building a solid reputation here be exploited as a means of extortion to keep me from bringing these abuses to light.

I was done with this, then Nubbins decided to turn it into an issue again by posting some lame ass "scam" accusation thread about me, along with a new negative trust rating as if it will change anything. I don't know how it could be any clearer he has no self control, only seeks more drama, and that he does not belong on the default trust.

iknowthatfeel.png


Actually, I thought we were both done with it, and then just yesterday I noticed the negative feedback you left me. Would've opened my thread sooner if I had noticed it, but since you're not on Default Trust, it was hidden behind an unobtrusive link.

I openly admit that I won't back down to intimidators like WoodCollector/TerraHasher/TECSHARE/SodaWarz/etc, and may respond -- should I choose -- to any defamation in such a matter as I see fit. would also like to point out that should any third parties be offended (sorry, "butt hurt") by this, the small "Ignore" link under my grumpy face should be in working order.

Wait, so you rally a mob against a user, damage his reputation before he even has time to respond, and attempt to silence anyone critical of your actions by abusing the default trust system, and WE are the "intimidators"? That is pretty funny. Accusing your opponent of exactly what you perpetrate is a pretty stale old manipulation technique. What is it any of us have to gain by trying to "intimidate" you? I can't think of anything. You on the other hand have demonstrated your compulsive desire for drama for no other reason than your own personal entertainment.

You initiated this conflict, myself (and others) responded. That is not intimidation, that is called a reaction to your abusive behavior. You should not be on the default trust list. You have shown very clearly you have zero control over your emotions and compulsions, and you have demonstrated repeatedly you are willing to abuse it for your own personal gratification.

Sounds like speculation. Where's the proof?

Oh, wait, proof is only required from other people, not you. What a narcissist.

Actually the proof is in the op, the problem is you don't have any clue how the default trust is supposed to work, so you wouldn't recognise it as proof now would you?

There is so much butthurt in this thread.

Maybe there should be a butthurt of the year award.

Someone should make a set of awards they "hand" out to people on this forum for like "most trustworthy"..."most butthurt"....

lol

Notice how most the seats are empty? This show is getting old.

I don't think people should be allowed to leave negative trust ratings unless they can prove that the person is a scammer, or they can prove the person is leaving false trust ratings.

This would not be a good idea. It would make it more difficult for the community to stop scammers from scamming in the first place and would make the entire marketplace more vulnerable to scams. If the marketplace is vulnerable to scams then people are not going to want to trade in the first place, which means that overall bitcoin commerce will decline

I think people should use trust ratings however they please (AKA the current system!). All of this "rules about trust" nonsense is foolish.

Don't like how my ratings might unduly influence others? Then either give me two trust systems (one for public consumption and one for private use), or educate people on what trust is, how to read feedback pages, why to trust or doubt my ratings, etc. Putting the burden of behaviour modification on people who got inducted into DT is a backwards-thinking approach that doesn't tackle the root cause of the issue -- noobs getting misled by inaccurate feedback.

Imagine if all the time wasted on this thread was put towards writing a guide that helped new users understand how to objectively weigh presented evidence to form their own opinion!  ::)

But I guess it's way easier to just wag the chin about "mob action" and complain about how everything is unfair.

After all, complaining fixes things, right?

I think that there should be some level of community standards when it comes to the trust system. Otherwise people will be exchanging feedback based solely on personal vendettas and if we give it enough time, then everyone will be labeled a scammer because everyone will at one point piss someone on default trust off. 

Let it happen.

When it gets bad enough, and the pages pile up with red enough, you'll realize what you should have realized from the start: your personal trust list shouldn't be Default Trust; it should be those you actually trust. You think any of your ratings even come up on my screen?

Not sure who to trust? Maybe that's something you need to figure out before you're responsible enough to use magic internet money.

Well people who are very new to the community need to have some kind of default list to lean on while they are learning. If they do not have anything to lean on initially then they will have a lot of difficulty figuring out who to trust because of the massive amount of manipulation that goes on in the bitcoin world.

I think we should have a forum for people to voice their concerns about trust that others are giving as well as concerns about trust received. Equally important is the ability of people who leave trust for others to keep an open mind about possibly removing or modifying sent trust after receipt of feedback from others.

Now if your sent feedback is appropriate to be given to TECHSHARE is something that you will need to decide yourself 

People who are new to the community shouldn't trust anyone. If we're "training" them to rely on green or red text they have less incentive to learn to stand on their own legs. If you're about to make a transaction I hope you've based your decision to trust the other party on something more substantial than this trust thingy and/or have taken steps to mitigate the risk.

No I don't think a newbie should base any potential deal entirely on one's trust ratings, however I do think one's trust score should be the basis of where someone should start.

I know you will probably say that a newbie should say escrow (at least this is what many people say) however without the trust system, it is not possible to know for sure who it is appropriate to trust as escrow.

I'm saying anybody should use common sense when making deals. When someone tries to sell you a 2014 Porsche Cayenne for a super attractive price, would you do some research? I'm guessing you would. Now if you're dealing with an anonymous person from an undisclosed location, would you do research? I'm hoping you would. You should take measures to protect yourself from getting scammed online, just as you would do out on the streets. Believing in some magical trust list is only making the ignorant more vulnerable, since it allows scammers to easily gain their "trust". And that's how (most) big scams work. Paying off for a while to gain trust and once trusted they pull their scam.

Edit: On re-reading I think I've gone way off topic. Motion to remove Nubbins from the default trust list; Denied. Again, or still.

Complaining... you mean like in this thread you just opened reigniting this issue?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=969863.0


Thank you for your judgement supreme justice nut.

if you think this way than clearly that it is abusive to use it as the way we please especially those of default trust list


it is basically that you are on default trust , that your judgement of trust is basically a guide for the other wether to trust or not to trust someone, if you feel that this is a burden, feel free to ask CITM to take you off his list

What?


What I'm saying is that it is incorrect to use me as a guide if I am a stranger to you. I don't feel any burden at all.

For some reason, people seem to think that I *should* carry a burden, as if this is somehow a more sensible approach than placing the burden on those who have not yet developed the ability to make intelligent choices. I have no idea why people think this way, but an offhanded guess would be that kids today have an extreme aversion to assuming personal responsibility, and will do anything in their power to shift the burden onto others. But what do I know?

The entire purpose of the trust system, especially the default trust, is to provide exactly those people with a guide of who to trade with until they can figure that out for themselves by gaining experience trading and building their own trust networks. If you don't want this responsibility you should ask Canaryinthemine to remove you for the default trust.

Of course you won't, because it gives you more power to attack people who dare to question your use and abuse of the system. Additionally it makes it more appealing for people to trade with you because trust ratings you leave have more weight. You just want the benefits but not any of the responsibility included along with it.

Is that going to be my official title now? Do I get ordained as the supreme justice nut any time soon? I'm assuming Admiral Ad Hominem will lead the ceremony.


Cheers  ;D

I'm sorry, the entire purpose of the trust system is to provide noobs with a "don't think, just trust" list? You're drunk, get out.

Your claim that DT makes it more appealing for people to trade with me doesn't hold water either. I have never left positive trust for people who have bought things from me; I've only left positive trust for users who sold me things where I pay up front. Y'know, where I trusted them.

I've had people beg me for ratings after purchasing things from me, but I've never done so because selling you something doesn't make me trust you.

Any other flawed arguments, or are you ready to admit you just hate my guts?

Will this story have a happy ending or not? It seems 12 pages for this argument are a little much. Maybe you both should apologize to each other (I assume  both are adult).

Nothing to apologize for! I'll stick around until TECSHARE stops with the libellous statements :D

Also: mildly surprised that people browse the Meta sub.

Tell me please, what exactly do I have to apologize for to Nubbins? He abused the trust system to attempt to silence me from speaking about his abusive behavior, and I responded appropriately by posting a topic about it in Meta where it belongs. Everyone screams about how free speech is so important around here, but when a self proclaimed "scambuster" like nubbins abuses the trust system to try to silence people from pointing out his excessive and abusive behavior, suddenly it is debatable again because he is "doing good" by harassing people indiscriminately. By the way if you check back at these 12 pages, you will find they are mostly composed of Nubbin's mob and filled with off topic insults and character attacks that the staff refuse to respond to when reported. I am not sure how I should be responsible for the childishness of his little cabal of stalkers. I don't want an apology from Nubbins, I want him to be removed from the default trust list for his abusive behavior.



I didn't say any of that, but feel free to make up statements and attribute them to me as if I said them as usual. As far as leaving trust ratings for people, you are SUPPOSED to leave ratings for people you trade with. You are confusing a trust rating with your trust list. Just another example of how completely clueless you are about the trust system, and why you should not be on the default trust.

By the way, not a single statement I made about you was a lie, not one. If you really believe I lied about you please do quote this supposed lie, I would love to see your "proof" (oh wait you don't need proof just a string of accusations against anyone who disagrees with you). I don't hate you Nubbins, I hate the way you behave, and you should not occupy any position of authority as you have demonstrated very clearly you are unable to handle it and leave nothing but a trail of drama and destruction behind you any place you go.

 :D


Off-topic, but whatever. Uh, it's all right there in the OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=969863.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=969863.0)

To quote you directly: "He also raised the price after I paid him the original amount he quoted." That's a lie. I gave you two options: receive a small refund (the default option) or pay slightly more for better shipping.

Stinky liar can't keep track of his lies! Better keep a lie journal.

Guys... Give yourselves a break.

Friday is my Saturday  ;)

Only thats not what was in your reply, in stead it was your wild interpretations of a single sentence.


If it is off topic why did you bring it up in the first place? That is not a lie. You did in fact make an error in the quoted price, and then ask me for even more BTC, but once again this thread is about your abuse of your position on the default trust, not the reasons I chose to leave an unmoderated trust rating for you (which you are now crying about in a "scam" accusation thread as well as here). You don't belong on the default trust list and others have been removed for MUCH less than what you have perpetrated on other users here as well as myself.

Wanted to call you out on your lie.


I require you to post the exact text where I asked you for more BTC.

If you are unable to do so, I will leave you further negative feedback for lying and making up stories to fit your narrative.

 You gave me one price, I paid, then you asked for more, therefore you raised the price. About all there is to it, especially since you quoted the PM's already anyway.

Now you are attempting to extort me into doing what you want by abusing your position on the default trust to gain compliance from me? I don't think you are making your case very well, in fact people have been removed for doing just that. But hey, why would Canaryinthemine care? He doesn't give a shit about having some one who stole tons of customer money like Friedcat on his trust list, why would he worry about people like you? You still don't get how the trust system works or have any concepts of the responsibilities that come along with it, your latest attempt at extortion to gain compliance is just more proof of it.

P.S. Wasn't that supposedly why you left your latest negative trust rating for me anyway? So tell me, why would you need to do it again for the same incident? Oh yeah that's right you think the default trust is a tool for punishing your opponents and fighting your personal grudges, not for ranking trustworthy traders. I think you are just enjoying your ability to abuse the default trust system a bit too much.

Are you fucking stupid? I told you to quote the exact text where I asked you for more money.

Quote the text where I asked you for more money, or you're a liar and full of shit.

Just for giggles, I'll re-quote the text where I offered to give you a refund and you had to actively refuse it in order to not receive it.

I'll also make the important part red bold because you're so fucking stupid you seem to have missed it.


Just because I think you're actually so stupid that you might wilfully ignore the red, bolded text above, I'll amp it up a notch.

"if I don't hear from you, I'll assume you'd like it shipped via the cheaper method."

Didn't read the rest of your post because blah blah blah. You're a fucking idiot.

Remind me again why you should be on the deafult trust list? Oh yeah, ^ thats why.  ::)
Maybe if you make your demands in bigger redder letters I will just do what you demand because you say so!

Nice avoidance!


You're a liar and full of shit  ;)

Speaking of avoidance, what does this thread title say?

well from the looks of it nubbins has effectively been removed since CinaryInTheMine was removed from level one.

It is probably for the best that the later happened.

Is either or both still on the list?

No, both have been removed. CITM was the only one on default trust who trusted Nubbins, so he is no longer on the default trust.

Now maybe it is better to lock this thread, you have "gained" what you wanted.