Tim Pool knows how to get the clicks.

Getting a field office staffer to say something stupid while being secretly recorded, and then trying to spin it into 'this is what Bernie is really doing' is pretty laughable though, even for James Okeefe.  

Like you did with me, hypocrite.  

There are two opposite sides of the allowable option to modify post title inside threads:

Advantages:

• OPs or the other posters are able to modify post titles to mark changes of projects (developmental upgrades, future plans, ie.), campaigns (Open, CFNP, Full, ie.), etc.

Disadvantages:

• There are many different post titles inside one thread, from OPs, or from the the other posters, that might mislead new guests.
• It will probably cause uncontrolled trollings, ie. that is what TECSHARE asked for changes.

Thank you for clarifying.

What about somebody who has malicious, dishonest motives other than simply outright stealing money?  For a concrete example, I have oft observed (including earlier on this thread!) that high-intelligence scum usually prefer becoming politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc. to being low-grade scammers or street criminals.

Many such people will execute perfectly correct trades with you—even for millions or billions of dollars.  Is it wrong for me to label some large, perhaps large majority subset of that group as untrustworthy and likely to harm people?

That is only a conceptual example, for the purpose of illustrating my point—though I must observe that in DT politics, TECSHARE’s general behaviour is what would be expected of a moderately shrewd low-grade political jobber.

Can't that be seen as an opportunity rather than calling it a hijack? I mean what is the problem even if someone changes it (I know that all the replies ahead will have the same title added below if a poster doesn't notice the change). I still see it as a way to use it as a subject of what you are going to say, so you need to describe less in your content box here (well everyone thinks differently) but alike TP, I've also not noticed any such abusive instances for the same. Can you bring attention to some here?

Bingo.  Frankly the only thing I tend to not trust about TECSHARE are some of his trust ratings, which is why I have him ~'ed in my trust list.  Other than that I don't consider him untrustworthy in the least--in fact, he has a very long history of completing trades to the satisfaction of his counterparties and thus it comes down to a case of leaving red trust for someone whose opinions/interpretation of facts/whatever doesn't jibe with your own.  I don't think the trust system ought to be used for that, and it seems like we've had this debate before.

As an aside, reading through this thread it struck me that we haven't heard from CH/TOAA ever since he promised to leave the forum--or I may have missed their posts, but I don't think I did.  Hooray for that but boo for all of this other drama.  Where are Rodney King's words when you need them?

No, that's your interpretation and it's irrelevant to the system.

Let's not forget to red-tag and/or exclude theymos for allowing all sorts of scams to happen here and for making money off the traffic generated by said scams, including Yobit, Livecoin, Cryptsy, Mt. Gox.

@TECSHARE, I know you've been upset with me for the last few months, but if you can please stick to this particular subject and not conflate it with our other disagreements I'd like you to explain as well.  Who do you think I'm telling to "go fuck themselves?"

Wrong. Nobody in their right mind would actively entrust him with a million dollars, he just happened to end up in that situation due to many externalities. Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

It's my "opinion", not a threat. See how this works nicely when you selectively enforce it, like you are (or he is)?

In the abstract, I look much more seriously upon frivolous positive feedback than upon questionable negatives.  You will notice that I have never yet left a positive for anybody, ever.  (I have been intending one for Lauda; perhaps I may consider a few others after that.)  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.


Hello, you sound almost like me. :-)


Hey, I said, “No backsies!”  I despise this childish game of the counter to the counter to the counter.

Because it explicitly is a “counter”, I will remove my “counter” if figmentofmyass, eddie13, and BayAreaCoins all remove their positive “counters”—and not otherwise.  However, this will not stop the potential that now that I am examining TECSHARE, I may independently add my own negative feedback at some point; and such a thing would absolutely and unarguably stay put until either hell freezes over, or I mine a Bitcoin block on my Raspberry Pi.  Perhaps longer.


Will you also do ~figmentofmyass and ~eddie13?  My feedback was a “counter” to their frivolous positive “counter” feedback.  It is negative, in support of Vod’s and Lauda’s negatives.  Moreover, will you ~Vod for the negative feedback that I am supporting?  I notice that you include Vod, and you are not demanding that he remove his eminently reasonable negative feedback that you are now counter-counter-countering.

(You already ~BayAreaCoins, so it is moot here.)

FYI, I left this feedback after Vod’s reference link led me to nutildah’s post on DT manipulation by TECSHARE and Kalemder, a Turkish local member whom I am investigating.  At the same time as I tagged TECSHARE, I tagged Kalemder based on nutildah’s post plus evidence that I will not yet disclose publicly.  Thanks, Vod!  Lauda’s was less useful, but only because I had already figured out for myself most of what it said.

Vod’s tip on nutildah’s post leaves me shrugging at TECSHARE’s accusations against me.  A DT manipulator tries to manipulate others into ~nullius by accusing me of his own guilt of trust system abuse?  Quelle surprise.


The trust system has evolved to become much more than that, as you well know.

Most of my positives (including one from a moderator) are for my technical expertise, such that people who read my technical posts should know whether I know whereof I speak, or I am just spouting Internet faux-expert techno-gibberish.

I myself have been saved numerous times by negatives and informational feedback discovered through the trust system.  The forum is a dangerous place, in a good way, because freedom is dangerous:  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions; and they need such reputational information available to them as is necessary for the exercise of wise judgment.  Aside, reputational systems are a major interest of mine; and I have had some thoughts on how to improve the trust system into a cypherpunks-style cryptographic, decentralized reputational system like a PGP WoT that actually works.

With so many scammers, trolls, sockpuppets, and other miscreants hereabouts, I would not feel comfortable even posting here without the trust system.  Before I apply significant merit to a post, I check the trust system.  Before I praise someone in public, I check the trust system.  It’s not perfect; and as you know (cough), I have nearly suffered disaster due to my own foolishly excessive reliance on a single positive trust feedback from a very trustworthy person.  Cf. what I said above about my conservatism in positive feedback:  A mistaken positive can be far more harmful than an erroneous negative!

---

(1) You, who game the trust system, accuse your accuser of your own wrongs?  That is exactly the type of dishonest behaviour that will earn a non-“counter” negative feedback from me—on grounds similar to Vod’s, but independently of him.  One which will stay permanently.

(2) Any evidence about “alts”, or are you descending to the level of a garden-variety whiner full of “conspiracy theories”?  I have been frequently accused of being both Lauda and Satoshi, and less-frequently accused of being about a half-dozen others.  Yawn.

Note:  I will not waste my time arguing with your nonsense, other than if you have substantial evidence on point (2).

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing.

Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating.

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

even if it doesn't restore the person's trust score, countering still seems useful where there is disputed negative feedback on someone's trust page. it at least shows there are two sides to the story. an undisputed red mark doesn't convey that.

a surprisingly gracious move by suchmoon.

I'm not defending Yahoo62278's decision to wear the signature himself, I would not have done so in his situation.  And I'm certainly not defending the manipulation which Yobit used to advertise their exchange.  If I had to pick the more productive method with which the two scenarios were handled, I believe you handled the LiveCoin debacle with more honor and dignity.  But that's not to take anything away from Yahoo62278, he volunteered for a job that would make me cringe, and did it remarkably. 

I will however defend the choice by DT members to not tag Yahoo62278.  I think it shows restraint and care.  Like I said, I'm convinced both exchanges are scams, but I won't use my position to force others to agree with me.  I will always allow room for disagreement and difference of opinion.

In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.

I don't think that's why he came up with the flag system, though I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to it and have yet to make a flag against a member here.  TECSHARE has always brought up the issue of the difference between dispicable behavior and trustworthiness in business deals--and sometimes, but not always, they're the same thing.  As an example, I think TECSHARE is an angry loon but I would do business with him with no hesitation because of his track record on the forum of not screwing people over.

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too.  

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

I'm just trying to gauge how much personal responsibility and due diligence iluvbitcoins considers acceptable. It looks like 0 so far.