Bitcoin Forum

TECSHARE maliciously abused the BitcoinTalk trust system, here are the details.

Tecshare listed a $100 T-mobile card for $100 worth of BTC he claimed he purchased from Target: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=811922.msg9089092#msg9089092
most of the deleted info can be seen in quoted text provided.    He wanted 1:1 for the item, I told him that it would not likely sell at that level, he then essentially told me to 'get off his lawn'.   Not so coincidentally Target was selling the $100 Tmobile card for $95, so I posted that to the page which apparently caused a conniption because he closed the listing, relisted it with w/self-mod then 'suited up' for revenge.

Tecshare apparently reviewed my history and sought to plot his 'revenge'.  He wrote some off topic spam at one of my threads (which needed the bump [wink]), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=842689.msg9409960#msg9409960 then, when that wrong wasn't enough, the old devil turned up the heat and played a trump card --  he issued a false, and blatantly malicious, report in order to harm my trust rating.  He specifically indicated that we did business together to the tune of 1btc worth, which is a boldface lie.  In said same reporting he issued negative feedback and provided no reference material.  Here is the proof https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=225066
Please note, he knew that any like-kind  retribution on my part would essentially be meaningless since he does many deals and has a healthy feedback history, and I do no deals.  

Beyond any reasonable doubt TECSHARE abused the bitcointalk trust system in an effort to seek vengeance for me saying his Tmobile listing wasn't going to sell at 1:1, and that he was an old fart.  Well his diabolical plan to wreak evil worked -- my trust rating is meaningfully damaged.

Please note, Tecshare knew he could have issued negative feedback without, lying about the 1 btc transaction, but he knew that would not have made a meaningful difference in the outward appearance of the trust rating, as such he consciously decided to lie about the transaction in order to malign my username's character.

Tecshare's response went well beyond juvenile, or simply irresponsible behavior, it went against the very spirit of a TRUST system, his actions has shown him to be reckless and untrustworthy.  As such I am requesting that his trust rating be revoked, that his username be banned for a period commensurate with the offense, and that his referenced 'off topic spam' and 'fraudulent trust report' be removed.

 

To me, it sounds like you are upset that after he told you to frick off his thread and you wouldn't listen.  ::)If you do no deals, what was the point of posting in his thread.
haha

What's your problem OP? Where is your proof that he isn't trusted within this community, cause I can see the proof that says he is trusted? Did he steal from you? NO, you acknowledge that.

Seems like he was selling an item, you didn't like the price so you tried to sabotage his listing by posting a link to a Target sale. He told you to piss off and you've carried on like a complete dick.

Are you a complete dick Armis? The evidence suggests you are!

Hahaha

Your take away is amazing, if I didn't know better I'd bet you did business with the sly devil, because your framing is just too suspicious but I'll ask the question most directly do you believe my actions were warrant?

This is not his site nor was his page moderated my actions were all legitimate, his were not.

As for "If you do no deals, what was the point of posting in his thread" it wasn't for a lack of trying to do deals.  As you see in my trust rating one other guy gave me bad feedback just for refusing to do business with him.  Clearly he too abused the system but didn't lie about doing a deal knowing none was done -- he told the truth.

A TRUST system isn't a vehicle for LYING, TECSHARE violated the spirit of the reason why it was placed there in the first place.

I think your actions were not warranted.

Now I answered your question now you answer mine. Are you a complete dick Armis? Be truthful!

The evidence suggest that if your Trust rating took the exact same hit it would render the exact same results as what you see at my rating, and my guess is you would not like it either.

According to you guys if someone started a thread and he didn't like what was said by any poster to the thread he would be justified in using the trust system to fraudulently report an action that never occurred in order to chastise the poster.

With that said let's move over to this thread, a thread that I created, a thread that you posted displeasing statements  to, would I, therefore be justified in falsifying a report indicating that I did business with you to the extent of 1btc simply because I wanted to damage your trust rating?    Wouldn't that seem harsh, overboard, and wrong?

Only a real DICK would do that.

Report me if you like then the mods and I can debate whether or not your a dick! I'm guessing they'll side with me and here's why:

Tecshare:
Legendary member
Long time BTC talk user, 2011
Trusted rating
Thousands of deals done with solid feedback

Armis:
Sr.Member
User since this year 2014
    -6: -1 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

So you go into a sales thread see an item, then post in the thread suggesting the seller is ripping people off for selling an item for what it's worth, then you post a Target sale link.

^ Clearly a shit thing to do and for no other reason than to be a pest. You've clearly poked the wrong bear.

Now you want people to take your word over his that he shouldn't be trusted as you claim he's retaliated for you being a complete DICK in the first place!

Can you not see how you've brought this on yourself?

So according to you the community here should forget his thousands of successful deals and ruin his rep for a deal you didn't make, is that right?

I stand by my first call your a complete dick!

He might be a dick, but that's no reason to leave false negative feedback, especially when you're in the default trust network.

I reported the posts and asked for assistance from the moderators. They were ignored. Some how his abuse is ok though. I am not sure why I should tolerate harassment.

You guys are always quick to point fingers but you don't care to lift that finger until it becomes a bigger issue. I guess the moderators are too busy pruning my 2 year old threads for bumps I forgot to delete to help here. Or maybe his off topic spamming of my threads is "free speech" and you don't want to censor him. In the end I have to deal with it and it costs moderators nothing to totally ignore my requests for a reasonable solution.

Seems to me that Armis won't be doing that again to anyone who is trying to legitimately sell on this site.

So perhaps this can serve as a lesson to not screw with people here or you'll get screwed with yourself! To many people hide behind their console being A holes thinking they can do so without blow back. This proves otherwise!

Exactly.
You're on the Default Trust list. Your feedback carries more weight than most. I've eaten a lot of crap for the same reason and decided to use an alt. account with no Trust to leave feedback in cases such as these. Maybe the new forum will have a orange warning option for this very reason. Hopefully this can easily be worked out soon.
Just my .002 BTC

Reasonable solution, self moderated thread, not this.

Fake negative feedback is petty and childish, and not becoming of someone in default trust. You can try and blame us or whatever, but your actions are your own, nobody else's.

I got on the default trust list by doing hundreds of trades over a period of years without incident. I was not just picked out of a hat. I don't leave negative trust flippantly. I don't see how you using alts to abuse the trust system is some how not as bad as my supposed abuse. People put their trust in me because I don't rip people off and I worked hard to make sure everyone I deal with is satisfied. This guy is completely unreasonable and the moderators refuse to assist me.
I don't mind using all the hard work I have put in here to tell everyone else about this guy and his habits of harassment, and that is the point of the trust system, to let people leave feedback freely without coercion. If I was negging everyone who posted in my threads it would be different, but im not. I negged a person who is purposely trying to effect my trading by harassing me in my threads when I have never dealt with them before, and he never intended to deal with me either.
Is there another recourse that would provide any results, or is your suggestion simply to deal with the negative effects of this clearly aimlessly obsessive individual who likely wont give up for a very long time?

a sample of his obsession:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709278.msg9438300#msg9438300
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32469.msg9438249#msg9438249
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35656.msg9438146#msg9438146
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844619.msg9437997#msg9437997

I am not blaming you, I am pointing out you are blaming me while also ignoring my previous requests for a more civil solution. I am supposed to close years old threads with thousands of hits and dozens of feed-backs created before self moderation, and start over again because of one troll? Also you have read this guys posts and I am the childish one? I wouldn't want to deal with this guy ever, and I am sure others feel the same way.

You automatically call mine false feedback and equivocating this with your feedback? Interesting language. I use an alt. when the offense IMO does NOT warrant turning someone's account red but rather serve as a warning to others.
Your feedback left in this case was not warranted nor was the fake risked amount of 1 BTC. If you feel you are harassed, do as suggested and make self moderated threads. When all else fails and your temper gets the best of you, add the offending person to your ignore list.

 I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your criticism. I am supposed to close years old threads with thousands of hits and dozens of feed-backs created before self moderation, and start over again because of one troll? I might also add here that I did create a self moderated thread for the original point of contact, but he also showed up in my other threads. Its funny how quick people are to defend perpetrators here over trusted members trading equitably here for years.

MY hypocrisy? In the few minutes it took you to reply to me, are you claiming you found the account I used, read all the feedback I left AND verified it was bogus? Really? You really should stop digging and work out a solution.

What the fuck are you talking about? You admitted you do this, I didn't accuse you of anything except doing exactly what you are criticizing me for. You seem like you are just here to look for some drama.

No?  
At least I can handle drama without leaving bogus feedback.

Ok, clearly you are here to feed on drama. Ignored. Its always easy to do "the right thing" when someone else pays the price.

example of an action I have taken to preserve reliability of trust, demonstrating my respect for it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=809084.0;all

I get the quick ignore and no bogus red like you freely handed out earlier?  ;D

you aren't following me around like a puppy with OCD.

Ooops! Did you forget where the Ignore was?

Ooops again!

No, but like the OP you seem to have forgotten where your life was.

At least I can find and use the Ignore feature when I claim I will.

OP do you think you could control your OCD enough to delete your posts in all my marketplace threads and never come back to them? If not I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss. All I want is to continue trading equitably minding my own business like I have been for 3 years WITHOUT being harassed.

Wow that took a turn! Seems the fact the OP kicked this off with a wrong deed has now been lost. Mods should lock this thread and move on. I hear the new forum software is pretty special so hopefully it has mechanisms to protect both sides of the street. Opposed to the current model that allows spiteful trolls to throw mud without consequence!!!

My 2 cents!

P.S
I still think the OP is a dick! LOL

I think it would be extremely informative if you delineated the events as you saw them.

Detail the events and show the board when it was that you first cried to me or anyone in the thread that you were being "harassed"?
Did you delete any of your posts in the subjected thread?  If not, then it becomes clear that whatever actions I took were not of a "permanent" nature?
Did you you bear false witness when you claimed to do a transaction with me for 1BTC?
Given your history, you knew or should have known that your false feedback coupled with the false 1BTC would aggravate the offensive action.

Funny that you claim OCD and 'follow me' me behavior, because you are clearly forgetting that it was you that initiated the 'follow me' behavior,
When you posted the following message to my listing: "UPDATE - this works both ways   $0.03 raised, you'll have your digital chess game in every library in the nation before you know it!"    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=842689.msg9408371#msg9408371

Now lets examine those 'OTHER', 'OCD', 'follow me', comments that I issued, if you look at the chronology you will find that they didn't start immediately after
you expanded to my thread.  In fact they started only after I was told that 'feedback is not moderated'.  

Plain and simple, you lied in a Trust system, I didn't.   According to the rules of the site, I have a right to travel to threads and share my 'on topic' opinion.  You afforded yourself the same opportunities but for whatever reason you wanted to do harm over and above that which is site permitted and reasonable.

Tell your story from the very beginning and be thorough so that everyone could see the degree of "harassment" you endured that resulted in
your blatant violation of the TRUST system of this site.  Show us your mind set as events occurred, let us see when it what that you first
contacted mods so that we could cooperatively determine if your claim(s) were true, justified, or responsible.  



As of this message this issues has graduated to a formal complaint to Bitcointalk

looked up the threads. 

ARMIS is a little bitch. 

Good luck to TECSHARE. 
It's difficult to keep such a great rep then have your threads trolled by someone you never did business with.

You didn't answer my question. If you are refusing to communicate with me I don't think you will resolve this. Dictating to me what you want me to say is not communication BTW.

note: After consulting with moderators, I have decided that the application of the 1 Bitcoin value to the negative was not appropriate. So I have replaced it with a zero Bitcoin negative commensurate with the intent of the feedback system.

This thread is ridiculous...don't but in and cause drama in threads for no reason. TECSHARE is legit and rather than making a dumb thread like this, you should PM him and try to work it out. Admins will not intervene over trust feedback...suck it up and either try to work it out or just drop it.

I'm specifically inviting you to tell the truth, the full truth as you see it.

I want to pinpoint when it was that you first felt "harassed".
I want to know when it was that you first filed a report with the mods, provide a copy of the complaint if you wish?
I think when we see the particulars it will show that your "harassment" claims are not only inflated, but within the rules of the site.

The minions that support your position are doing so in a way that is far more inflammatory than anything that occurred in our actual exchanges.
I think when you give the specifics of what you cried to the mods about, and we match them against what your supporters here are saying,
the startling contrast that will make your claims look woosy.  

I didn't come here seeking a fan club, don't need one.   I came here to point out a critical flaw in a TRUST system that you exploited.

Your actions highlighted how someone can uses the Trust system as a weapon,
your actions highlighted how someone with a history of excellence could fall of his rocker, and in a fit of rage act irresponsibly,
and
your actions highlighted how someone's tenure can provide a false sense of entitlement.


What you did was wrong for a 'newbie member', wrong for a 'jr member', wrong for a 'full member', wrong for a 'Sr. member'  ...
and wrong for a 'Legionary member' too.

I'm guessing this is not the first time you have done this, how many time have you lied in the TRUST report?
How many times have you issued negative feedback in the absence of a connecting deal?
How many times have you used the TRUST system as a weapon?







 

I think with the 1BTC now removed his feedback is valid and this thread is done.

Bottom line, if you can't trust someone like TECSHARE, who has conducted himself impeccably, and who has arguably been *the* poster child for successful and professional trading within this community, who the heck can you trust?  I think some of the responses from some of the mods here, though valid with regards to leaving false feedback, gloss over the fact that TECSHARE has done this forum a world of good over the past few years, legitimizing crypto trading and raising the bar for quality salesmanship and integrity.  If I were him, I would adamantly defend myself, too.  TECSHARE's history speaks for itself.  So he blew up once, big deal. It sounds like he was provoked while doing what he does best -- selling.  Give the dude a break.  

This ^ , as I understand it the only thing that made my feedback invalid was the value attached to it. I corrected it to a zero value, therefore the reason for me leaving the feedback is irrelevant because it is valid. I did not understand this important distinction when I left it, and I have corrected it.

If you want me to remove my now valid feedback you will have to have a discussion with me and no one else. I am satisfied to let you harass me all you like now, or you can remove your posts in my OPs and never come back and I will consider removing the feedback. Feel free to PM me, or just make more drama like you do best.

Make it simple, you remove content that you shared (truth lie or otherwise) regarding me, I remove all content I shared about you, such that no reference is made about either party from the other party.  

When it is finally agreed that all other items have been deleted, this thread will also be deleted.   If you agree I will erase the posts that you have highlighted.

No thanks. I am fine to let things sit as they be. Let me know what you decide.

Hahahahahaha I was right, your a Dick (even trying to speak all lawyer like) ROFL!

Seems you've run out of leverage "DickArmis"!

acknowledged

Until now...

Should never leave negative feedback for personal reasons, esp if you are on the default trust list.

I got drunk one night and left negative feedback for someone based on a personal reason.  The next day the community ripped me a new one before I apologized and removed it.  I have no idea why the same thing is not happening here.

I think the amount of times you have left negative feedback for people for a hunch or personal reasons can't be counted on both hands and feet. He was directly attacking my ability to trade here for no other reason than to troll. That's not personal, that's business.

Well it appears that the OP has actually deleted his posts on your thread but your negative feedback remains on his profile.

From the looks of it though the OP was making valid points about your price. Gift cards are never going to trade at above face value (if they are available for $0.95 on the dollar from the store they are redeemable from and you are selling them at $1.00 on the dollar then you are selling at above the cost to buy it). I would consider what the OP was doing on your thread to be pointing out that you were offering a bad deal. It is common and expected for the community to point out these kinds of deals

From the looks of what is still on your thread, it appears that you take criticism (constructive or not) very poorly. This probably escalated the situation by causing him to want to continue to argue.

EDIT: it would appear to me that you are holding his reputation hostage until he deletes his comments about you offering a bad deal to someone that might trade with you.

I'm also on default trust, but I don't personally reserve feedback for business transactions. You were made aware of this yesterday lol

That being said, I don't hand out feedback frivolously.  I don't believe TECSHARE does, either.

The trust system is just a way to publicly announce who you personally trust or distrust and why.  I'm sure TECSHARE is well aware that if he were to frivolously provide negative feedback to a whole bunch of people it would kill his reputation.  Accordingly, I perceive this as an anamoly.

So other people get to decide what price I get to sell my property at now? Asking for what I paid for an item now is unreasonable is it? I shouldn't have a right to have a thread without people using it as a tool of harassment without any desire for actual trade whatsoever?  BTW for you information he didn't delete his posts, he deleted one then continued to post more after he was emboldened by the resulting replies. Its not like I am misrepresenting myself and trying to cover something up, its simply not any of his business what I sell my property for.

BTW he hasn't deleted anything:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32469.msg9438249#msg9438249
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844619.msg9437997#msg9437997
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709278.msg9438300#msg9438300
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35656.msg9438146#msg9438146

LOL.  Why take off your socks if you can just use a calculator?  There's one on most phones and computers.   ;)

I didn't see those other threads/posts, although they appear to be a result of an escalation of the situation after you gave him negative trust. I was referring to the posts on this  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=811922.msg9089092#msg9089092)thread (the one mentioned in the OP here).

No I don't think that others have any right to be able to set the price that you sell items for, but if you are giving a bad deal then that fact will be pointed out by others. Although I would not consider the price you were/are selling your gift card to be a scam, the same is true when there are potential scams; the community will point out that anyone dealing with the person will likely get scammed (you can look at Vod's posting history to see this in action, as he will often point out potential scams long before he gives negative trust to someone).

It is my understanding that the trust system is designed to allow people to warn others of a scammer and/or people who are showing signs of untrustworthyness. For example if someone was promoting a potential scam, were trying to scam, promoting a ponzi, then you should give negative trust (or if you were scammed or there is evidence that someone else was scammed). If you can point to the OP doing one of the above, or can give a reason that you consider valid as to why you think others should "trade with caution" then the trust is valid; if you cannot give a reason why you think the OP has or will scam then your trust is not valid.

Thank you for your opinion, but that's all it is. Your opinion. We are all free to use the feedback system here without coercion regardless of a trade occurring, or your indifferent proclamation of moral violations. This was a direct attack, not just a casual comment or two, and I consider it to be indicative of being untrustworthy.

IMO feedback should only be given out if you have a legitimate reason to either trust or distrust someone. Except for very extreme circumstances you should not give negative feedback for personal reasons (although the feedback system is not moderated).

I agree that if feedback is given for invalid reasons (as per what members of the community think) then a person's "real" level of trust and reputation will be tarnished. It is also noteworthy that any given person is only on default trust for as long as others on "level one" of default trust deem necessary for them to be on default trust (in other words this status can be revoked at any time)

I agree with basically all of this, with the exception that we probably differ in opinion on how "extreme" the circumstances must be.

 I corrected my mistake and I already offered him a solution to this. He could just delete his posts in my threads and be done with this, but clearly he would rather create more drama. Just check out his signature now. Maybe next he will change his name to "tecshareabusedthetrustsystem".

Who do you think stands to lose more as a result of this drama?

I think the more appropriate question is why did it begin in the first place? I can't find any good reason. I am not interested in negotiating with him AFTER he already screwed up and was given multiple opportunities to resolve this, but refused. If he wants to resolve this all he needs to do is delete his posts from my marketplace OPs, its pretty simple.

I guess that is fair enough. If you are asking about this thread, then it was for him to try to get his negative trust removed. If you are asking about your gift card thread then it was because he felt that you were charging an unfair price (although I think he should have made his point and moved on).

I would say that you do have the right to say that you "do not trust him" via your negative trust, and he has his freedom of speech to say that he thinks you are misleading people/are dishonest on your sales threads.

I personally think that you both are in the wrong for both of your actions (especially how he is behaving as of recently).

these:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32469.msg9438249#msg9438249
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844619.msg9437997#msg9437997
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709278.msg9438300#msg9438300
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35656.msg9438146#msg9438146

All I want is my original state to be restored, just like he is trying to get (only via demonizing me in the community rather than just simply deleting his posts and moving on with his life). I am simply doing unto others as they do unto me. He attempted to attack my reputation having never traded with me, and I did the same to him in kind. Why should he be free to do this and I am not free to do the same?

Like I said he is especially in the wrong as to how he is acting after you gave him the negative trust. (I think he was also in the wrong after he made two or three posts in your gift card thread). Also correct me if I am wrong but all of those posts were made after he received negative trust from you.

If you really want this resolved then I would suggest that you remove your negative trust for 24 hours, and both post here and PM him that his negative trust will stay removed in the event that he either removes his posts or edits his posts so they more accurately reflect facts and give nothing more then constructive criticism. If he complies then you don't bother him again and he doesn't bother you again; if he does not then you can add your negative trust back on his profile; if he removes the posts and then you put the negative trust back on then he adds the posts back to your threads; if he deletes the posts then adds them later then you put the negative trust back on his profile.

You are both essentially trading with "paypal" so neither one of you risks anything by "going first". I understand that you trust rating means that you pretty much never need to "send first" when trading with others and as a result you have very little risk of ever getting scammed, however your risk in this situation really is very low.

I know this is unsolicited advice, and you can take it or not, but that is how I would handle this kind of situation if I were you.

of course you are free to do the same as armis.
but i dont trust armis, but i do trust you: just think a moment why ;)

This has nothing to do with risk. He could choose to continue to try to harass me, and I could leave negative feedback again. It is the principal of the matter. He shouldn't have been doing what he was doing in the first place. He was provided many opportunities to leave or diffuse the situation, instead every step of the way he chose to escalate. I have already taken several steps to deescalate this situation. He has taken none.

I feel I have zero obligations to compromise with him in any way, especially since he has demonstrated he is unwilling to do so when offered. Instead he opted to dictate to me what he wants done. He has no leverage at this point. Regardless of this I am again stating I am open to deleting his feedback if he removes his posts in my ops, locks this thread, and deletes me from his signature. He can learn to act like an adult or live with my feedback. Its his choice.

That's fair.  I would react the same way.

Why is it that you refuse to prove that I am a thief?

Just find a definition of "insolvent" that involves "theft" and you can prove it instantly.

Otherwise it is just a personal vendetta.

 :-\

Thief.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=701592.msg8001343#msg8001343

Like I said, you want to engage me like a normal person, pay your debts.

I just want you to prove that insolvency=theft. Is that too much to ask? I am working hard to repay ALL my creditors, it is not fair that I must suffer your accusation when it has no rational basis.

While I do agree with your logic, I do think my advice would result in a quick resolution to the matter. If that is not a priority for you then you really have no incentive to compromise.

I, like you, have a very big ego, probably to the point that it is a flaw. I will personally spend hours at work arguing that I am right, only to be overruled, and told that I am wrong but I will not be held accountable, only for me to say that I still think I am right and that I will decline such leitancy if I am not right.

I bring this up because I think you have a lot more to lose then he does. He can simply create (or buy) a new account to conduct trades on while you cannot (your account protects you from scams while a purchased account does not, his account does not protect him from  scams - you are protected from scams because you have the pleasure of being able to get your counter-party to send first so you can make sure you are not being scammed). Although both you and Vod have a large amount of positive trust, it appears that you conduct a lot more business on here then he does (he can correct me if I am wrong), so you should have very different points of views on your own trust/reputation.

I think most people witnessing his behavior here will deem my actions appropriate. What is important when trading is people know I am not a thief, and my previous trust demonstrates that. You might write this off as being ego driven, but it has a very real effect on my ability to sell when people make a habit of this behavior. Instead of a marketplace thread it becomes a neckbeard herp derp party, at which point no one is even looking at the product any more. There is a lesson to be learned here, I am not about to quit when he is on the verge of understanding the price of his behavior. One way or another he is going to deal with the results of his actions. He can decide which way.

At least you are trying to be the adult and offer a reasonable solution for this "drama". I mean he trolls then comes crying after provoking the entire thing?  ::)

This thread is disappointing on so many levels.

Default trust, which can be such a good tool, being used as leverage and "make people learn a lesson", and what's more disturbing is that not only are people willing to turn a blind eye, but that some are even defending it.  I always thought default trust was a fairly good thing, and the self regulating nature of the community would fix any aberrant behavior, but clearly not. Looks like default trust is turning into a good old boys network.

That said, if the community is really okay with feedback being used in this way, then maybe it's time to just change the feedback system to accommodate that, and how the ratings are calculated. A good start would be to change it to where you need to have multiple negatives before it has such an adverse effect on your rating. Maybe people further down on the trust list hierarchy could also have a lesser effect on ratings than those higher up. This would also make using a trust level of 3 more usable than it is now.  


It's not so much this "anomaly" that bothers me, it's the way it's been (not) handled. Can you really read tecshare's posts here, look at the attitude, and say that he should be in the default trust network? Being a good trader doesn't mean you are a good candidate for default trust anymore than being a good poster means you would make a good moderator (it doesn't).

Do you really think that this will be the last time he does something like this, especially with people defending it and saying it's okay?

Would you be okay with this "one time anomaly" if it were you on the receiving end?  

I already made several attempts at deescalating this situation. I corrected my error with the feedback as well as provided him an opportunity to restore his trust rating. My request is not unreasonable. There was never a point when he at any time deescalated the situation. He got the trust rating for his actions, not just "to teach him a lesson". His lesson is he doesn't have to be marked if he can behave like an adult. Additionally I find it rather hilarious you have such an issue with my single use of the feedback system in this way when other users with FAR MORE trust than me on the default trust list leave negative feedback for people based only on hunches or personal opinions. Seriously some of them leave DOZENS of negatives for far less than this. Your complaints should be addressed to far more appropriate parties in your "good old boy network" instead of lobbing these accusations at easier targets like myself. I didn't want to do this, and I made several requests to the moderators for assistance and every one was ignored. I am frankly disgusted I have to defend myself for simply defending myself. HE HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT THIS - HE IS NOT A VICTIM - the only person he has to blame is himself.

If you are posting about me, why haven't you let me know your feelings before this?  My hunches are always correct, and I try not to leave feedback based on personal opinion.  If I do, I welcome you to call me on it, or send me a PM.

I don't disagree with this use of the trust system. IMO it naturally balances out. If you leave tons of negative feedback, people will take your feedback less seriously. I am simply pointing out that it is far easier to attack me rather than some one like you whom, it might be fair to say is in "the good old boys" network, and can push back against his accusations a lot more easily than myself. Basically I am a convenient person for him to make an example of over his frustrations of other people using the system this way far more often than I do, and with more trust. I would be happy to restore his trust to zeros, once he removes his slander from my OPs (his own form of attacking my reputation since he has no trust).

Badbear doesn't need to "attack" me - he can simply and quietly untrust me and all my power goes away, as I am not at the root of the trust system.  He is, and he trusts me at level 2.  Believe it or not, Badbear and I communicate less than once a month, and we certainly don't collaborate on our trust.

I hope you'll call me out anytime you see me leaving feedback you deem to be personal.  I do leave a lot of negative feedback, but that's because there are a lot of scammers.  I HOPE people don't view my feedback as less truthful because I leave a lot of it.  

You guys keep calling this "personal", but how is him attacking my trade reputation for no valid reason, and me responding in kind to stop the behavior "personal"? He is directly attacking my ability to sell. That is beyond personal, it is directly trade related. He slandered my reputation, and I responded by marking him for his abuse. Also VOD, BTW I think it is important to mark scammers, but to be frank I don't take your feedback as seriously because you do apply it frivolously, even if MOST of them were scammers.

As a heads up I would recommend that you be careful with all negative feedback you leave I was deemed to have "abused" the trust system with one of my feedback ratings that I left on a user that I had proved was trying to extort money from me and was slandering me. As a result of the rating I left I was removed from theymos trust tree.

It is a bad story , but if someone is in the deafult trust list I think it's because he is an honest person and he (try) to  help the community (Like vod and tomatocage when he has stopped a lot of scammers) ;).


#TECSHARE  a negative feedback for "personal" issues is not necessary .

This is interesting. I hear up and down how admins and mods don't ever touch feedback, the way I am being coerced to change mine I am not surprised.

Again, you keep saying its "personal". It is NOT PERSONAL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY. I never talked with him once before he started harassing me. He is attempting to harm my BUSINESS by attacking my reputation. He got only what he was dishing out back. BTW its easy for everyone here to call this "unnecessary" when there is zero cost for you to completely ignore the situation, and I am the one that is dealing with loss of sales and harassment. Apparently because I have lots of trust I am supposed to stand perfectly still like a royal guard while tourists slap my face.

P.S. you guys keep saying "default trust". I would like to point out I am not on the default trust list.

TECSHARE is being very aggressive against anyone who speaks out against him. If you look at his sales threads you will see that he bashes anyone who tries to question him or how he describes (or prices) his products. He will not accept any kind of criticism.

He is acting especially aggressive in this case. I would say that people are not speaking out against him out of fear they will receive similar treatment that Armis received. The fact that so many people conduct business here makes receiving negative trust a torpedo to an account. The only people who have spoken out against him (vod and badbear) conduct very little business here.

He is talking about theymos removing him from his trust network, as being someone that is trusted, not as a moderator. There is a big difference. Also the mod that is "coerced" to change your feedback is giving facts and is not forcing you to change anything.

Again, you keep saying its "personal". It is NOT PERSONAL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY. I never talked with him once before he started harassing me. He is attempting to harm my BUSINESS by attacking my reputation. He got only what he was dishing out back. BTW its easy for everyone here to call this "unnecessary" when there is zero cost for you to completely ignore the situation, and I am the one that is dealing with loss of sales and harassment. Apparently because I have lots of trust I am supposed to stand perfectly still like a royal guard while tourists slap my face. [/quote]You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.
You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14
Is this not what you are doing?

Here is another one you left for the same user on 9/10/13
Why did you not leave a similar disclaimer on Armis feedback? Or why did you not leave the disclaimer that he did not scam anyone? The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?

I remember when I blew up a few years ago at a time when I had much less at stake than I do now.  I'm not sure if you remember my argumentativeness around Old Engineer's "guess the date when BTC will hit $4" contest.  To this day, I feel my blowback (albeit prior to the implementation of the trust system) was justified, but I realized I had to tone it down a bit for the sake of my reputation.  A couple years later, I'm on default trust, and while my posts often take a contrarian position, I don't think I've done anything that warrants excluding me from the list. 

Sometimes certain issues rub you the wrong way, or you might be having a bad day, or a combination of things.  TECSHARE essentially acknowledged he went overboard by fabricating elements of his feedback, and he has since corrected them.  To me, this demonstrates a heathy level of awareness of what's transpired here, even if additional awareness only came as a result of hindsight (I.e. the blow ack he received in this thread).

To me, trust has a lot to do with consistency.  And even in spite of this particular issue, I think TECSHARE has done more than enough to demonstrate that he is an honest seller.  As far a I can recall, this is the only issue in which he has come under the microscope, and given that he's been an outstanding trader otherwise, I still think he deserves a place on default trust.  I think his defensiveness and attitude is warranted, and while I'm not in favor of fabricated or frivolous feedback, he has corrected the fabrication; whether his feedback was frivolous is up for interpretation.  I don't see it as frivolous because, according to his feedback history, it seems like an anamoly.

Aggressive? So telling people who have no interest in trading, nor have ever traded with me to get lost is aggressive? With all the crap that goes on in this forum me telling trolls to get lost is offensive to you? You peddle other people's trust ratings, I am not sure you are the one to criticize me about this.

Why does Armis have a right to decide what price I charge for my property? Which by the way I was selling at cost. This is not a legitimate complaint from someone looking to make a trade, it is just someone with nothing better to do than get his derps off messing with other people's ability to trade legitimately. Do you think that nearly every marketplace post here doesn't have a corresponding link somewhere on the internet that sells the item cheaper? I wasn't misrepresenting anything, how is this "unfair" for someone to pay a price that they were fully disclosed of?

Do people stand around in Target and hand you coupons for Wall-mart when you pick up an item to look at it? Do you think any proprietor would find that acceptable under any circumstances?

 If he has a dispute with my behavior he has the ability to post about it, like in this thread right here. His bullshit about trying to "help" is just a superficial justification for his off topic trolling of my market place thread. My marketplace threads are the ONLY place I can sell items here. He has the entire forum to start drama about me if he so chooses (and he does).

This is not the same as him opening a scam accusation against me. For one we never transacted or attempted to transact. Additionally if he wanted to accuse me of scamming he should have put it in the SCAM ACCUSATION subforum. His criticisms of me are completely fabricated because we have never traded. Me leaving him a negative is in no way reflective of my trustworthiness as a trader. My criticisms of him are for what he did, he spent a considerable amount of time harassing me, that's what I gave him a mark for.

As far as you deconstructing my feedback... its very clear you are attempting to create and feed of of more drama here...
VODs feed back for an apparent scam is ok, but my feedback for an apparent scam is not?
re 5/11/14 + 9/10/13
His negative on my trust was for "trying to rip him off without escrow" but he posted this AFTER I negged him for scamming, we never had a transaction. It was fake and retaliatory for calling out his scamming. Several other users clearly negged him as well for the same scam attempt.

As far as Armis scamming, I didn't claim he was scamming, my feedback says "You should focus on your own affairs instead of harassing others." Which was a comment about what he was actually doing, harassing me. You can "generally believe" whatever you like, reality is clearly different.

(and are both in the default trust network themselves, and so therefore 'equal')

Talking only about the default trust issues, and not anything specific to this issue or the people concerned, this is exactly it.
People aren't going to jump up to argue against someone who:
- Has left negative feedback about someone who annoyed them, and
- Is in the default trust network
For fear of annoying them, and being flagged as untrustworthy to anyone who subscribes to default trust, which everyone does by default.

It is, by definition, an old boys network.
You cannot get in by your own actions. You cannot get kicked out by your own actions.
It is purely the choice of the existing members.

So I didn't get all my trust for working my ass off for 3 years making sure everyone I trade with is satisfied? I never thought of it that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=192oEC5TX_Q#t=56

You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.
You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14
Is this not what you are doing?

Here is another one you left for the same user on 9/10/13
Why did you not leave a similar disclaimer on Armis feedback? Or why did you not leave the disclaimer that he did not scam anyone? The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?
[/quote]



Notice was sent to SaltySpitoon yesterday, and notice was sent to CanaryInTheMine today.

I don't know if this was in response to my post:

If so, then yes you got your feedback, and overall trust numbers by proving over time that you were a trustworthy person.
Was that what got you into the default trust network? I have no idea.
If anyone in DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust+1 trusts you, then you are in.
If they don't, you aren't.
You could be the most trustworthy person in the world, but have not come to the attention of the right people, and be excluded, or you could be a confirmed scammer, and still be included, as long as one of those people maintains his trust rating. Because of account reselling, they might not even be the same people who were originally trusted.
Your extremely positive trust ratings are likely to be a good indication you are trustworthy. Simply being in the default trust network is an incredibly poor indication of that one way or the other.
The default trust network is simply a bad thing. That doesn't reflect poorly on you.

Ok, that's fine, you can have your opinion on that, but why here? Are there not more appropriate venues? I initially didn't even want to participate in the trust system but it became an integral part of trading here whether I liked it or not. I don't understand why you expect me to defend it.

Your continued attempts at damaging my reputation are useless. Give up and delete your troll posts and your false accusations from my marketplace ops, remove me from your signature, lock this thread, and stay out of my OPs. Take responsibility for what YOU initiated. Continued escalation just demonstrates your malicious intent. I gave you an avenue for reconciliation. You can either take it, or take my trust rating for you. You don't intimidate me.

I don't think you can fairly say the default trust network is bad without saying the whole trust system is bad.  In both cases, the trust system assumes that people will be honest/trustworthy in using it so that you can accurately rely on the feedback.   My opinion is that there are always going to be people that abuse the trust system (just want to clarify I'm not speaking to this particular situation, but generally), and that the default trust network actually helps to mitigate this issue by indirectly ascribing more value to trustworthy accounts.  If people have an incentive to be trustworthy, i.e. to possibly 'make it' onto the default trust list and have a more valuable account, then they are more likely to be trustworthy.

To whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave this thread and not return.    My guess is you won't respect your own arbitrary guidelines for thread content contributions.  In other words, you feel it is ok to tell me that I can't go to your threads but presumably you see no problem in coming to a thread I start to make that demand.    That is the narrow-minded mentality that makes it extremely difficult for you to see things with a reasonable perspective, for you if it isn't black or white you just don't see it, worse yet is your sense of entitlement beyond the privilege; you clearly feel that you have the right to do as you please with "your" thread, and "your" feedback; even if it means breaking someone else's rules, and trust.

You were TRUSTED to make reasonable decisions all of the time, this time you failed; you were TRUSTED to act responsibly all of the time, this time you failed; and you were TRUSTED to be honest all of the time, this time you failed.   You failed because you are human, when others saw your fail they quickly ran to your aid, but you shoved most of them away claiming to be ok -- it is not ok, you are not ok, there is nothing ok about the matter.

There's a trust line that doesn't extend to perhaps 90+% of the membership but it flows to you, it starts with the admin, and connects down to the few who should be proud to respect and honor the privilege of that trust.  You knowingly broke that trust, and inasmuch as those above you on that trust-line may be encouraging you to mend the trust you breached, you refuse like a stubborn child who won't eat his spinach -- it's for your own good.  

Whatever infraction you believe I did to provoke your wrath is gone, was gone before you issued the feedback and gone before you visited my thread.  However, most of the results of your behavior is still shining bright.  You want forgiveness for breaking the rules while the damage is still visible, but don't want to give forgiveness for a matter that no longer is visible.   That's the narrow-minded mentality at work again.  You see the splinter that was in my eye and complain while a log is in your eye.

I didn't lie in an Trust system, you did;  I didn't fraudulently claim, in a Trust report, to do business with anyone, you did; you have PROVEN yourself to be untrustworthy, I'm calling attention to that breach and asking for a resolution consistent with that breach.

As for you demanding that I not use my signature to point to my thread -- just more of that narrow-minded mentality at work yet again.  Think, could I tell you what to do with your sig? ... so why would you think you can tell me what to do with my sig?


Again, to whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave the thread and not return.

Yes I am very convinced you were brutally victimized by me asking you to stay out of my threads, and I'm sure you did absolutely nothing to provoke this senseless & vicious attack on your impeccable character. ::: insert crocodile tears here ::: I repeat, I can ONLY sell in the market place. This is my ONLY outlet for this information and he chooses to maliciously interfere with it. He is free to criticize me on nearly the rest of the entire forum. Your superficial veneer of an excuse saying you were just "helping" doesn't hold up. Your goal was harassment from the very first post and it has been nothing but escalation from you since then. You are going to have to act if you want resolution from me. Let me know if you decide to grow up. If not that's fine with me too.

This brings to light the need for neutral feedback. In my opinion this allows a user to leave a message on someone's profile without any rating.

I asked that that be made a feature of the new forum.

I still trust Tecshare from a business standpoint, but I have removed him from my trust list. And yes I have been really busy, found out my house's wiring is shit, and I've been spending the last week or so trying to keep my house from burning down, sorry for my absence.

in short, what I mean. I trust Tecshare with my money, however he did handle this situation poorly. He asked me for advice on what to do after this incident happened, and I advised that he change his feedback to a 0 BTC risked sum. Frankly, people should be able to leave whatever feedback they want, as long as its accurate. If I wanted to leave people feedback saying, this guy is a jerk because X, I should be able to do so, however fraudulently applying a value isn't ok, which is why I pulled Tecshare from my list.

Despite this incident, I wouldn't hesitate to deal with Tecshare (personally) I wouldn't hesitate to look at feedback he has left with a bit of extra weight, however whether it was Tecshare's fault, or just a bad decision based on limitations of the trust system (lack of a neutral or whatever) being on the default trust list is a privilege which puts extra weight on your shoulders to make sure you are accurately giving feedback, and this was handled poorly.

Good for you, now we just need CanaryInTheMine to weigh in so this can be resolved. I'm curious to see what he thinks.

This technically no longer matters due to recent improvements in the trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=851380.msg9473940#msg9473940). All that would need to happen is one additional person on the "root" level of default trust to exclude TECSHARE for the matter to be more or less resolved.

Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network. 

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.

Even changing it to 0btc still wouldn't have been ok in my opinion. I don't think people in the default trust should be leaving neg rep just because they think someone is a jerk. The new neutral feedback option would've been perfect here, but most people who are pissed off or angry aren't going to use it or even if they do the person who they left it on will likely retaliate with negative.


It was handled poorly. I like Techshare and agree that he is still trustworthy with money but he was in the wrong here and his stubbornness and attempt to bully and essentially blackmail was an abuse of the system IMO and it has now cost him.


Everyone knows the feedback system here is heavily flawed but I can't think of any feedback system that is perfect, but I think the right thing happened here and people on the default list should be scutinised more and and held accountable when they overstep the mark. When they have, or potentially have, it should be open for discussion and people from all sides can chime in and if they have been found to abuse the system and refuse to co-operate or see their error they should be considered for removed from the list. I think the trust system can work very well but only if you can trust the people on it to make rational decisions and they aren't afraid to admit they're wrong or change their mind.  

Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven, but one incident after 3 years of impeccable activity here and I am out, and the people who trusted me are coerced into removing me under threat of removal themselves. This was just an excuse to make an example out of some one so you can keep forgiving your cronies for real abuse and make a scapegoat out of someone who has been an honest and dedicated user of Bitcoin and the forums. You claim that I was wrong and I refused to see that, I admitted what I was wrong about, putting in a BTC value when there was none. I corrected that.

What ensued after was corersion against me and others in an attempt to force me to change my trust rating. ARMIS was in fact only there to harass me in my single outlet for trading on the forum. He initiated this conflict. He claims he deleted his posts but he only deleted one then began posting again. He deleted all his posts after I left him a trust rating to make it look like I was overreacting and that he actually stopped posting. If you read my quotes of him you can see he continued. He also deleted several taunting insulting posts from his own thread again to make himself appear like a victim in this and not a perpetrator. He has since them posted in at least 5 of my other marketplace ops accusing me of being "untrustworthy" in an attempt to slander me for giving him negative trust. Also him changing his signature to slander me also was clearly another escalation as well.

No one is acknowledging here the fact that he began this and escalated it at every point of the way. This is why I am being "stubborn", because I admitted to the mistakes I made, but that wasn't enough you had to punish me punitively for defending myself when the moderators refused to do so even when repeatedly requested. I didn't just attack this user for no reason. He was actively slandering me in my marketplace ops directly inhibiting my ability to trade in the only section I am permitted to. He has the freedom to criticize me everywhere on the forum. He also believes he also has the right to harass me and interfere with my marketplace posts dedicated exclusively to trading for his own personal entertainment.

This wasn't me trying to "blackmail" or oppress this user in some way. All I was demanding was to be restored to my original state BEFORE he started this conflict with me. I never demanded he be silenced or be unable to slander me anywhere else on the forum he likes. He is taking my ability to speak from me then claiming I am doing the same to him because I took action against him. My feedback was legitimate once corrected. I pointed out his harassment, and that is what it was for. Badbear for example accuses me of leaving negative trust frivolously and that I am some how abusing it for using it like it was intended, to warn others of problematic users, yet his trust list contains people who use the feedback system in EXACTLY the same way, and he excuses it. I am accused of participating in an "old boys club" while the real old buys club uses me as a convenient scapegoat so they can further excuse the abuses of their buddies.

I have seen the moderators and staff here have whole threads dedicated to harassing a minor (atlas), for no other reason than they found him annoying. I pointed out that it was a bit excessive and my post was removed. I then posted that anyone's posts not critical of atlas were being deleted so they banned me. You people have no right to talk to me about being aggressive and abusing users. It is a daily activity for staff here. Meanwhile this troll comes along and manipulates the situation and cries like he is being oppressed and the staff lick it up because it is a easy way to roll out and justify trust upgrades and cover for the actual abusers of the trust system, their buddies. I imagine the next step will be that you will retroactively claim my feedback is now invalid because I have other options with the updates. That's a convenient backdoor way for punitive action then forcing me to remove my feedback anyway because you changed the rules after it was left ;)  

You are always talking about how you don't moderate feedback, but clearly you do, only thru coercion and threats of trust removal. This isn't a forum trust network. It is the Theymos trust network, and he demands everyone in his harem does what he decides. There is no posting of clear rules for trust ratings, and even if there were they are being selectively enforced to cover for the ACTUAL repeated abuse of trust from people in his trust list which he conveniently seems to not see. Then I come along and make a single infraction of these unwritten rules, correct the mistake in posting the trust, but refuse to submit to their threats for removing it completely because Armis instigated this and refuses to reciprocate with removing his slander of me and I am punitively punished. Not only by being removed by from the trust but because Armis still has slanderous posts in my marketplace threads regardless of how many times he claims he deleted them. He had no intent of leaving me to trade in peace, or to even engage in trading activity. If you actually read the posts of his I quoted you can see he is simply there to entertain himself at the expense of my ability to trade.

 I can't just take my existing years old threads with tons of good customer feedback, answers to questions, and other valuable content and make it self moderated, otherwise I would and none of this would have happened to begin with. My only option within the forum architecture left was either to leave a negative rating, or simply suffer damage of my ability to trade and speak freely here without being drown out by a 4chan like atmosphere.

The marketplace is so overrun with trolling I can't even sell items at cost without people claiming I am being unfair just as pretext to start an argument and make more accusations. This is exactly what Armis was doing to me, and I told him repeatedly to leave my thread and he refused. He CLAIMS he deleted his posts, but he deleted only his first post, then jumped right back in to start harassing again when others joined in emboldened by his first post. I attempted reports to moderators many times but all of my requests for assistance were ignored. He later deleted his other posts in my now closed thread (now reopened as a self moderated thread) after I left him negative feedback to try to appear reconciliatory and victimized after he had repercussions from me.

If trusted users aren't free to leave trust ratings that they decide on what is the point of the trust network? Also if the point of the trust network is to help direct people to honest traders, what is the point of removing me from the trust if I have been a model of a legitimate trader here? You say I was abusing the system for ONE trust rating left when users regularly hand out DOZENS here, even from users on the default trust list, for nothing more than a guess or because they were annoyed. All you are doing is EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Blackmailing me into doing and saying what you want.

Disappointing that the staff have chosen to basically shit on a guy who has done a lot to make the trading and trust system within this site a credible entity.

Regardless of circumstance I think this has been handled poorly by both sides of the street!

Seems as if the Staff including those who aren't so active but have major control have used this a vessel to demonstrate their power and in doing so have hung a loyal user out to dry for a moment or two of annoyance on his behalf, which is arguably justified in some respects. Surely those in control could have approached Tecshare privately and said "hey man we can't have this, shut it down". Instead of forcing others to do your dirty work for you, which has occurred.

The management of this site was always kept in high regards by myself as they didn't allow this kind of shit from escalating. One wonders why this has now been allowed to occur. Seems like a good opportunity to push some new site features perhaps or maybe just show you can, and will flex your muscles?????  

Ban me if you like I don't care, but I'm sure when you read this YOU will know I'm right in what i say.

Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)

49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?

#TECSHARE

now you're still a trustworthy person , but you're not anymore in the defaultTrust list and this is not a real problem ;).

Good luck with your future deal.

Your account (just like every other account) at one point only had 49 posts, and this is not evidence that I am just a "shell".

Unless you can dispute any of the facts/arguments that I have presented with facts then the fact that you think I am a "shell" does not matter.

You need to remember not to believe what someone says simply because of their rank, but should read what they are saying to judge if what they are saying is credible or not

If there's a "shell" account here it's probably you. Barely any posts since March/April and the ones you have made are almost exclusively about Infinitecoin.

Here is a quote from negative trust that TECHSHARE left someone regarding Infinitecoin

Yeah, that's the connection I was making :P. Tech is the dev or something of Infinitecoin, so likely a buddy of his.

2 posters both with hardly any activity getting in on the fight over trust by an old users and some dick which then the staff got in on, some surreptitiously, cause they wanna throw their cyber weight around. Then you turn on me for pointing out that those newb accounts stink like shell accounts! Perhaps you've been directed to oppose my assessment cause it's a little too close to the truth!

So much I could spout about this situation that stinks all the way up to T.........s, but I won't, cause I'm not a snake in the grass like most of you c...ts!

Oh and yes Tecshare is a friend of mine, I didn't realize that was a secret! Do you want me to provide an extensive list of people I'm friends with?

And I haven't posted much of late cause I have a life outside of here! If my account is a shell account explain the purpose of it, STAFF?

Staff you can check my IP to see there's a continental divide between me and Tecshare!

Good to see BTCtalk now has staff making BS accusations! Perhaps you should back those up?

So all of these ratings I am listing below were only for scams? It doesn't look like that to me.

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference   
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference   
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000      
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference   
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Also there are dozens of negative trust left on nothing more than a hunch that the user is a scammer on top of the clearly non scam related posts above. People on the default trust REGULARLY "abuse" the trust just like the staff have claimed I have, and some how I am supposed to understand this is selectively enforced and some are more equal than others.

Those "overpriced" goods were sold AT COST. Just because it is available somewhere else on the net for less doesn't make my goods "overpriced" or "unfair". If it is really that unfair who the hell would buy it to begin with? If no one would by my product to begin with because it is so unfairly priced, what is the point of warning people about it? No one here considered that someone might be willing to pay COST for a product for the reassurance of knowing THEY WONT GET ROBBED. He had no justification for being in my threads. He was there solely for trolling, and trolls don't give a shit how many logical arguments you make, that doesn't make them go away.

I wasn't just "feeling" like he was harassing me, it is a FACT that is what he was doing, and all I demanded in this process was he restore me to my original state before he started harassing me. Since that is impossible now he has no chance in hell of getting my cooperation and he will be stuck with his negative feedback. I made an offer to that would restore US BOTH to our original states but he refused this in favor of attempting to intimidate me into following his dictates. Now both of us are worse off than when we started. Not exactly constructive of him considering every step he took was one of escalation.

As far as me "Selling trust", that is just horse shit. I have been the first trading partner for HUNDREDS of users here easily, because I was at one point the only reliable game retailer. Additionally new users feel comfortable trading with me because they know I treat people fairly. I purposely labeled all trust left to new users with the product or service they transacted with me so that people reviewing their feedback could know EXACTLY what it was for and judge the rating accordingly. Just because I get a lot of new users here started does NOT mean I am selling feedback, and all the accusation is just another attempt at slander me so no one else has to admit their own mistakes here.

So far I am the ONLY ONE WHO HAS admitted any wrong doing in this situation. No one has even acknowledged he instigated this and he should have been minding his own business to begin with, and my reward for offering reconciliation is more punitive punishment and coercion of my trusted trading partners to remove me from the default trust. I have lost what little respect I have for the staff here with this (although I'm sure they could give a shit what this community thinks). They are simply using me as a scape goat so they can move on with the new trust system WITHOUT having to admit mistakes and abuse were made on their part. As usual complaints against mods and staff are just swept under the rug and ignored while they offer me up as a sacrifice to appease their detractors for the slightest infraction. Standard operating procedure around here.

lol.  I got drunk ONE time and I paid for it.  You make it sound like I do it on a regular basis.

Yeah but, you do. I posted examples of trust you left for non-scam related activities, but some how they are ok. I am sorry about calling you out personally, but for Badbear to criticize me while he has you on his trust list is completely hypocritical.

Yeah, but I don't get drunk and post on a regular basis - I did it once.  You are lying.

You were the one accusing people of being shell accounts without any evidence and there was evidence to suggest you were quite possibly one in this situation but you've now just admitted to being one yourself anyway. He might not own or control your account but your relationship with Techshare is very relevant because it shows you are bias and anything you say on that matter should be taken with less weight because you're not being impartial, hence you're essentially a shill or a shell here or whatever you want to call it. You're also being very childish about it all now.

And I was directed to this thread actually, by Techshare via PM asking if I could "give him some support" and I suspect he did the same to you, but as usual people start crying about there being a conspiracy or the mods are abusing their power blah blah blah when something just hasn't gone their way and they were in the wrong.

Seems like you and Tecshare share some of the same mentality, as you go about insulting, taunting, and "harassing" (by Tecshare's arbitrary standards) people who you know to be people in authority in this forum you appear to disrespect and/or disregard, and/or fail to appreciate their enormous judicial restraint in this thread.

You and TecShare are the ones who throughout this thread expressed copious amounts of contempt, not just for an individual, or those who hold an opposing view to yours, but for the conventions of this site's reconciliation process, as well as common protocols of any civil dispute process, ... heck you even rejected the informed considerations of consul who share your underlined view.

Find, and focus on, the good reasons to be on bitcointalk.org.