I'm not sure what your reasons are for asking me for all this evidence.
Well, thread is collection of his trolling, you said you and other users have been attacked and trolled by tecshare so I asked you to post it here. Suffice it to say the evidence exists, but I'm not interested in spending any time digging through his numerous posts where he's called me out.
Fair enough. My assumptions, which I've already admitted cause me to think the point of this thread to get Tecshare banned. That would make it a witch-hunt. I started my first post in this thread with a question, if I'm wrong correct me. If this thread is nothing more than a showcase of Tecshare's trolling then it seems even more pointless.
Creating thread about his trolling is not a witch-hunt. Him being long time here and having trading history doesn't justify his constant trolling. I am not asking for a ban, if anything will get him banned it will happen because of something he did himself. It is very simple, every time tecshare start trolling it should be documented, if he stop trolling there will be nothing to document, but that will mean, well, that he stop trolling. That should be positive outcome. |
|
|
|
I wish it would stop.
I wish his trolling would stop. [...] I've recently been one of his targets, and I don't feel like it's such a big deal. Like many other aspects of life, we will have to deal with misinformation, lies, and attacks. [...]
Even if many users think "altcoin giveaway" is not big deal, it is still against forum rules to do "altcoin giveaway". The same goes for trolling: 3. No trolling.
Please link posts where Tecshare targeted you. He'll attack people who disagree with him, call them names, refuse to see the logic in their arguments, and then point the finger at them and blame them for every thing for which he is guilty.
Can you link these posts as well? Yes, it's true that he's a troll. One among a long list of trolls on this forum. This whole anti-Tecshare thing is starting to look like a witch hunt.
Elaborate this. You claim Tecshare is troll and on the other hand you said that it is starting to look like witch hunt. There is no anti-tecshare, there is troll who is trolling wherever he can and there are some users who will point his trolling. How is creating thread about user who is trolling == witch hunt? |
|
|
|
@TECSHARE are you going to remove account Vispilio from your trust network because of trust abuse and add them to "suggested exclusion" list?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53957784#msg53957784
Message you are sending is: "I am asking users to exclude some users because I don't like them I think they are abusing trust while I have account who abuse trust in my trust network".
Why do you support trust abuse? Marlboroza includes proven scammers on his list? should we be following his trust inclusion orders? I usually don't read your posts because you are on my ignore list (probably because you deflect instead providing good argument), so call it curiosity. Who is that imaginary scammer which is in my trust list?  Btw, thanks for quoting my post and bringing this trust abuse suggested exclusion account for The Objective Standards Guild to next page. I really do appreciate what you did here  |
|
|
|
@TECSHARE are you going to remove account Vispilio from your trust network because of trust abuse and add them to "suggested exclusion" list? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53957784#msg53957784Message you are sending is: "I am asking users to exclude some users because I don't like them I think they are abusing trust while I have account who abuse trust in my trust network". Why do you support trust abuse? |
|
|
|
~if you are trying to ask me something else then ask me correct question.
Okay. Are you telling me explicitly that I manipulated Lauda's trust list? You asked me for opinion and I gave you one. Then you implied that my opinion is not fair (at least this is how I understand your message, sorry if I misunderstood you) then I said I don't see manipulation. Now you are asking me if I am clearly telling you that I think that you manipulated Lauda's trust list, while I stated something completely opposite. |
|
|
|
Can an admin please review this case of red trust on my profile left with no reference?
Eh, trust isn't moderated in most cases unless it is some huge nonsensical abuse and according to this:  No one has to leave reference. Look at it as a badge of honer, the more you expose, the more badges you get. I know this sucks but user very likely (maybe) won't end up in DT so just ignore it |
|
|
|
~snip~
Thank you for your opinion. I always thought you were fair to all kinds of disputes. You asked me: ...and I literally did TL;DR on those PMs! I can't say that I see manipulation when I don't, if you are trying to ask me something else then ask me correct question. |
|
|
|
Cmon, let him act on this one to show he stands behind his words.
Or maybe just let the topic die already since there's clearly nothing positive coming out of it? Objectivity was seemingly never the objective, heh. Maybe you can throw some more circular logic at me. This forum needs objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating or flagging in order to prevent abuse of the trust system that it self can be used to extort people into removing valid negative ratings or flags. Without this, it is a simple task to simply abuse the system to cover up crimes and abuses. Are you going to remove user Vispilio from your trust network because of his abusive trust rating? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53957784#msg53957784 -> please respond here. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the publication of PMs is not a violation of forum rules. Therefore, when we send someone a PM, we can only hope for basic decency. I believe that the publication of PM (without consent) should be tagged.
I would like to know the opinion of the community. May be in this topic...
If in the opinion of the community it turns out that this is not a trust case, then I will remove the tag or will replace it to a neutral one.
You tagged lauda because he published PM, would you tag TECSHARE for publishing PM? Actually, he is included to your trust network, are you sure you trust someone who published PM while tagging someone who did the same thing? You will find answer in my question |
|
|
|
Why oh my? Case number one: Is the rating I left for Vod valid or not? Are the ratings he left for me valid or not?
No and no. [...] Of course, conversation continued in trolling spirit, tecshare again: Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked.
[...]
Suchmoon replied again but tecshare continued with trolling: Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked.
I already answered in the shortest and most direct way possible, literally in the post you just quoted. I can't help you with your compulsive lying issue, sorry. Oh I am a compulsive liar now? Refractory projection much? Are you taking lessons out of Vod's book now? Trolling continued: Since you answered this question, please quote your answer for clarity, that is unless you are going to take another page from Vod's book and just keep claiming you did while never actually doing it.
Is the rating I left for Vod valid or not? Are the ratings he left for me valid or not?
No and no. Stop using theymos as a crutch when it suits you. He also said "it'd be best to forgive". Until you, Og, and Vod start seriously working towards deescalation I can't be bothered to care about it anymore. Five minutes of being adults is all it takes. Look at Lauda+Quicksy = ♡. You can do it too, I believe in you, don't let me down. [...] It seems pretty clear you didn't answer my question at all
Quit lying, the answer is right there, you just disagree with the "no". My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. You in fact did not answer my questions. You replied, but you didn't answer them. That is not the same thing.Trolling continued and moderator at some point removed some posts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53938737#msg53938737. Case number two:[...] This thread itself documents several instances of negative rating abuse by Marlboroza, of which he was forced to remove under public pressure.
Who forced me exactly  [...] [...] You were forced to do so by the same people advising you that these abusive ratings only make you look bad, like what happened just now. [...] Who forced me?
I have no idea. You tell me.^ Don't be. Example: 1) find nutildah's post 2) say something irrelevant for topic(again) and make sure it is something about nutildah which will make them respond (it can be word or one sentence, but strong enough to cause reaction) I act because I don't enjoy my character being discussed this way.
You're not the first member to be analyzed in this fashion and you certainly won't be the last. Weeks after getting on DT my reputation was thoroughly savaged. If you can't handle criticism then don't dish it out. If you must know, I distrusted you because I don't trust reformed shitposters that suddenly decide to take an interest in forum issues. You're trying too hard.
Seems as if my instincts were correct here. You should have taken this as advice to tone it down a bit, but instead you ramped up your involvement in the drama even more. You apparently have lots of alt accounts on the forum which makes your obsession with DT (perhaps quest for eventual DT status as it would appear) even more disturbing. I want to be clear that I do not wish to pass any kind of judgment on hacker.
That's all well and good Quickseller, and thanks for chiming in with your analysis, but could you please stop posting under both of your accounts in the same thread? Its getting rather insulting that you insist we pretend you're not Quickseller (you are -- I'd rather not open a thread in Reputation about it). If you're gonna post in a thread, stick with one account. Kind of weird that you are using an alt to post in a thread that is largely about alt accounts. Yeah you like to analyze them real good don't ya? Get up in there deep. Funny how these deep dives always seem to happen when people speak critically of a handful of users here and all of the toadies hop out from the dark to form Doltron. This is just the usual retribution for the crime of open discussion as if the most vocal characters here aren't engaged in exactly all the things they are running around accusing these others of. 3) wait 4) nutildah replied, triggered by troll: Yeah you like to analyze them real good don't ya? Get up in there deep. Funny how these deep dives always seem to happen when people speak critically of a handful of users here and all of the toadies hop out from the dark to form Doltron. This is just the usual retribution for the crime of open discussion as if the most vocal characters here aren't engaged in exactly all the things they are running around accusing these others of.
When I said my reputation was savaged weeks after being added to DT, I was referring to actions done by yourself and subsequently cryptohunter. You're in no position to be talking about "usual retribution" here as you tried your hardest to shit on me over an issue you supposedly don't care about, all because of some stuff happening in P&S. Don't play that tune for me, bullshit maestro. 5) Bingo! Continue to troll nutildah in not related thread 6) deflect thread more using "nutildah - bill gator" "argument" I mean I am not in control of any accounts accused above others than this ( not logged in from 2 years ). K, doesn't mean you don't have alts. Yeah you like to analyze them real good don't ya? Get up in there deep. Funny how these deep dives always seem to happen when people speak critically of a handful of users here and all of the toadies hop out from the dark to form Doltron. This is just the usual retribution for the crime of open discussion as if the most vocal characters here aren't engaged in exactly all the things they are running around accusing these others of.
When I said my reputation was savaged weeks after being added to DT, I was referring to actions done by yourself and subsequently cryptohunter. You're in no position to be talking about "usual retribution" here as you tried your hardest to shit on me over an issue you supposedly don't care about, all because of some stuff happening in P&S. Don't play that tune for me, bullshit maestro. That wasn't retribution. Retribution for what exactly? When I am talking about retribution in this context I am talking about abusing the trust system to punish people for speaking out. All I did was talk about your history here, I never used the trust system against you. That was me using your own standards against you to show what a total hypocrite you are as you run around accusing people of shit you yourself are guilty of. You were trying to destroy Bill Gator's rep for speaking out using the fact that he purchased the account as the sole crime he was supposedly guilty of, yet you yourself were engaged in the same activity. Yes yes, you claim you never actually sold it, but you can never prove that, and we all know how much you enjoy speculating, so lets use logical speculation to assume your account was sold too since you can't prove yourself innocent. See how much fun the guilty until proven innocent standard is? People like you Vod, and Suchgoon keep saying this kind of shit like it is just so obvious I am abusive of the trust system you need never actually give any examples. Then when I press the issue you just again pretend it is self evident and scurry off to your clown holes, or argue over meaningless shit until the topic is sufficiently slid to another subject. 7) hope nutildah will respond again 8 ) drag more people into trolling system 9) hope Vod and Suchmoon will reply 10) rinse and repeat Case number 4 (trolling using TRUST SYSTEM): Topic seems quiet lately  Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.
4. Users who follow these standards should be included in trust lists.
5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible.
There is no inherent hierarchy. Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. Using the avatar below and linking to this thread in your signature is encouraged. Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systemic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
This is trust abuse according to rules of this guild, not to mention some ratings are real trust abuse (note: I didn't check references of unmarked negative trust ratings)   5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible. Do correct thing @TECSHARE and thank you for this topic. He completely ignored this, like any other troll would... Cmon, let him act on this one to show he stands behind his words.
Or maybe just let the topic die already since there's clearly nothing positive coming out of it? Objectivity was seemingly never the objective, heh. Maybe you can throw some more circular logic at me. This forum needs objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating or flagging in order to prevent abuse of the trust system that it self can be used to extort people into removing valid negative ratings or flags. Without this, it is a simple task to simply abuse the system to cover up crimes and abuses. ...while lecturing others how to use trust system, he is doing something completely opposite, user in question is part of TECSHARE's trust network, not to mention that TECSHARE it the same topic completely ignored these facts (cases number 5,6,7): None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem.
Nonsense! I want to have a honest debate about the topic, seems you don't. I don't see any logical explanation why you don't want to address these not-by-standards-suggested-inclusions-of-yours:  You invited me to topic, I have read it, you said I am trust abuser, you suggested to include those accounts (claiming they are by standards of this guild) and now I ask you why is something which you call trust abuse suggested inclusion? Can you please provide proof of connection https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53889824#msg53889824In topic about TECSHARE's removed off topic replies, TECSHARE accused moderator that he removed his own topic (it is documented by nutildah)... As usual the fucking trolls make an assumption and state it as fact. I did NOT delete my thread. [...] Of course, tecshare is not interested in any kind of discussion, he simple replied: Just because you are allowed to do it doesn't mean it does not reflect poorly on you. Thanks everyone for helping me draw more attention to these issues. Much appreciated.
(there are more tecshare's trolling in that topic) Case number 9 TECSHARE VS moderator:Accused moderator that he removed post, while flying hellfish said he didn't do it [...] Since I didn't delete the post I don't know which thread it was in and in reality everything after that is entirely moot.
...Tecshare continued, even if it was explained to him several times... I think he just overlooked the possibility that you were responding to my post in a thread I didn't post in.
Are you accusing him of lying about deleting your post? Seems unlikely to me, but this isn't the first time he has explicitly told you that he didn't delete a post from your "FLYING HELLFISH - SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CENSORSHIP" thread, and you seem to just not care.
If you think he's lying, call him out on it and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.
If you don't think he's lying, then remove the posts he says he didn't delete.
Or do nothing if you don't care if your accusations against FH are accurate or not. I don't care what he did or says. A moderator deleted those posts, this is a fact as evidenced by the quotes. Him claiming not to have done it in a section he is in charge of and just saying it was "some one else" is not a resolution, even if he thinks it is for him. I have absolutely no way to verify anything he says. Me having a log of these acts harms no one, and the only reason this thread exists is so the usual dingle berries have some ass hair to cling on to and create a circus out of it. Be my guest. Clown away and draw even more attention to it.
There are more examples, I will probably post them at some point so reserved... If anyone has example, feel free to send me PM and I will update topic. |
|
|
|
Cmon, let him act on this one to show he stands behind his words.
Or maybe just let the topic die already since there's clearly nothing positive coming out of it? Objectivity was seemingly never the objective, heh. Tecshare will prove that you are wrong!I take my words back, you are right. Lolz. |
|
|
|
~
Cmon, let him act on this one to show he stands behind his words. |
|
|
|
Topic seems quiet lately Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.
4. Users who follow these standards should be included in trust lists.
5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible.
There is no inherent hierarchy. Anyone is free to call themselves a member of The Objective Standards Guild as long as they follow its tenets. Using the avatar below and linking to this thread in your signature is encouraged. Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systemic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
This is trust abuse according to rules of this guild, not to mention some ratings are real trust abuse (note: I didn't check references of unmarked negative trust ratings) 5. Users who are subjected to accusations and ratings without any form of documentation should be defended and supported as much as possible. Do correct thing @TECSHARE and thank you for this topic. |
|
|
|
By the way I was looking around and found this - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2073579.msg20717506#msg20717506such great thoughts about those reputed coins shows how arrogant and negative minded Lauda is quote below Have u heard about Recoin? i purchased 700$ but planning to do more. what do u think about investment like this?
You are an idiot. Stop investing in shit that nobody uses/wants/needs. Calling someone idiot just because he invests in altcoins while if someone calls Lauda idiot I am sure Lauda and his army will red paint him to an extent that his account will look like a joke. This recoin https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/recoin-ico-scammer-pleads-guilty-in-court/ ? Trying to prove Lauda is wrong and negative you proved Lauda was right?
Read.
These trolls read what they want to read, they see word "idiot" and they see lauda posted it and then they take everything out of context. |
|
|
|
However, excluded (~Vispilio). Currently DT2 status "Vispilio (-1)", so I don't think counter feedback is necessary.
@OP, still are you seeing red trust on marlboroza's profile?
It is like on-off button. I had DT -ve then I didn't then I have it again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
