I won't go so far as to say this makes him a "scammer," but its pretty dishonest behavior. Its obvious what TS has been doing over the past few months, and its evidenced best by him adding 6 Turkish local board DT1s to his trust list weeks or days after they were added to DT1. There should really be an open discussion as to whether or not this type of behavior is an acceptable practice for a DT1 member, and as shown by the fact that TECSHARE is now back at -1, its safe to say that the community agrees that its not. Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP: 7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2) 7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier 7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE 8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2) 8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2) 8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) 9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1) 9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1) 9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1) 9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0) 9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2) 9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) *became DT1 at this time As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite: (sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite 5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't. I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now. You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists. Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward. I love this critical analysis of everyone I add to my trust list as if I obviously should be suspect, but any time I bring up say the inclusion of Nutilduhhh even though the account was publicly offered for sale, no one bothers replying. Of course I am required to defend my inclusions but no one else in the clown car mob is. More rules for thee but not for me, that's Bitcointalk SOP. You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent. I won't go so far as to say this makes him a "scammer," but its pretty dishonest behavior. Its obvious what TS has been doing over the past few months, and its evidenced best by him adding 6 Turkish local board DT1s to his trust list weeks or days after they were added to DT1.
There should really be an open discussion as to whether or not this type of behavior is an acceptable practice for a DT1 member, and as shown by the fact that TECSHARE is now back at -1, its safe to say that the community agrees that its not.
Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP:
7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2)
7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier
7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)
8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2)
8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)
9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0)
9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2)
9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)
*became DT1 at this time
As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite:
(sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite
5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)
Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't.
I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now.
You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists.
Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward. These are just some of the people who conspired to create a fake flag against me here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.0 after I exposed their collaboration in this flag thread here: [Flag] DT ring creation discussion / merit abuse / collusion to harm BCT https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.0Most of the people in the thread overlooked the fact that their ringleader obtained merits by deception. Then, instead of handing them out to who was promised, handed them out in a criss-cross pattern to bump a select few into DT1/2. From what I can see mhanbostanci is the only one to make it to DT1 and has given me negative trust wall feedback.
TECSHARE has made a very thinly veiled threat to stalk me unless I remove my *neutral* trust/feedback post (last paragraph and his "PS") in this now archived post: https://web.archive.org/web/20190908033629/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.msg52379325It would seem that Tecshare is making good on his thread by throwing his hat into the ring with these collaborators. You forgot to add that the very first thing I asked these people to do was remove their support for their invalid flag against you. Of course that doesn't count, because I was critical of your own invalid flags, and of course you can't tolerate anyone criticizing you can you? Of course not. I added them because after having a discussion with them and explaining why it is not in their interest to abuse the system against you, they responded in a way that engendered my trust. You on the other hand responded in a way that engendered my distrust, and that is of course why you are here throwing stones from your glass house. |
|
|
|
Please do source the substantiation for these claims in the non-theoretical context if you will.
That won't be necessary, because the timing of my essay and your inclusion into DT1 was purely coincidental. Really, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it. But now that you mention it, there is a significant resemblance. <bantha drool> I understand that big words are hard on you, but you really could have avoided all that hyperbolic kvetching if you would have taken the time to learn the definition of just one word: hypothetically That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl. |
|
|
|
Sorry Techy, I have no idea what you are talking about ? Why do you think, when I opened thread, that I knew it was you who added BitcoinSupremo to your trust network ? I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message.
Why would anyone contact you for anything? Look what you have answered me last time I contacted you in very polite way to add some crucial information to thread: I have sent PM to TECSHARE to unlock thread so I can add something: When he reopens thread I will post some important data about this matter. Anyway, I am glad that you came here to give your point of view about topic and poll.
To spice it little with P&S, completely off topic: Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle. History has shown that this kind of "free speech" and "opinions" leads to people getting beaten, killed and on larger scale it leads to wars. Not to mention speech of hate is forbidden in certain countries and you could get fine or jail penalty because of it (guess why...). Free speech is one thing but speech of hate is completely different thing, maybe it is time for English lesson? The feigning of ignorance is quite convincing. Yeah, you have been totally polite in your obvious coordinated clown car attack. I live in the USA where we still have free speech, and according to the law hate speech doesn't exist, so maybe a lesson in law? |
|
|
|
|
Why is this even in meta? Please direct your obviously coordinated attack to reputation where it belongs. If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me about it instead of making a 3 ring circus about it clearly demonstrating this is about targeting me personally, not who is on my trust list.
|
|
|
|
You caught me red handed using the trust system exactly as it was intended building a reputation trading over almost a decade.
Wasn't talking about that - I'm referencing your recent trust trading with other members. Go to https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx and type TECSHARE in the Quick Filter box and see for yourself... Is a log of DT changes supposed to prove something? So now immediately any action I take regarding my trust list is suspect and therefore I am a scammer just because you say so? This is just more of the usual transparent and pathetic sad party clown act you have been doing for years. The trust system is nothing but a cudgel for you to take retribution on anyone who dares question you, that is of course when you aren't trying to get the IRS to do it for you. So how long before you " learn your lesson" and " take a break" and " ignore me" for the 8th time again, or whatever it is, as people continually make excuses for and enable your consistently abusive and erratic behavior over the years? |
|
|
|
From a technical perspective, there is nothing to prevent a government from collecting post information on bitcointalk. However if bitcointalk policies explicitly disallow government law enforcement from collecting information in mass via automation, in general, law enforcement will have trouble using information gained via these means as the basis for a warrant, or as admissible evidence in court. This makes sense, you should send the suggestion to theymos (or create a topic in Meta). Unfortunately without an explicit terms of service, this kind of policy is legally meaningless, and Theymos has made it pretty clear in the past he doesn't want to use one. |
|
|
|
Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you.
Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic.
Occam's razor. It's not the first time this kind of scenario is playing out with you. Third one since the overhaul of the trust system IIRC. Getting harder each time to believe in those coincidences. Not really sure what you are even implying here, but it sounds quite ominous and illicit I am sure. I have been targeted for daring to speak up against abusive people here pretty much continually for something like 7 years. There is no coincidence, it is just a long collection of miscreants struggling to take potshots at me using any angle they can pry into, no matter how flimsy the basis. I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message. Just another aptly timed 3 ring circus complete with clowns and a sad magician. |
|
|
|
BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant.
No, it's more likely that you included BitcoinSupremo because you liked his rants against Lauda or whoever, and didn't even bother to check his trust feedback or any other accomplishments. Tends to happen a lot with you. It's no big deal really, anyone should feel free to do whatever they want with their trust list. Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you. Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic. |
|
|
|
Here we are, once again SIX YEARS later, the bunny boiler in chief is at is again, abusing the trust system to scratch out the retribution he could never hold on to all these times in the past as documented here. Vod 2019-09-09 Reference "This profile has fundamentally abused the trust system, trading positive trust with as many others as possible to get on Default Trust. See reference and the BPIP DT Change Log for examples. Do not trust this profile's trust of others by adding ~TECSHARE to your personal trust list."It seems like a pretty obvious pattern here of Vod crying in pain as he lashes out at me. Once again, he accuses me of abusing the trust system by the very act of abusing the trust system. |
|
|
|
you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud
Ok, I know it's probably pointless, but let's try a picture just in case you're verbally challenged: https://i.snipboard.io/50xUIJ.jpg][img width=500 alt=Loading...]https://i.snipboard.io/50xUIJ.jpg Let me guess your next argument: the question mark makes it the other guy's fault? You caught me. I used the word fraud. So what is that supposed to prove now? Is that supposed to prove you didn't claim this thread was not about his words and opinions but about his "scammy" behavior? Scammy, that is another word for fraudulent is it not? This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud?
Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying. The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
You are just folding as a form of conflict avoidance. This whole thread is a giant dance of conflict avoidance. You cant even say my name or PM me your concerns like a real man, you have to dance around with metaphors and examples. You are just caving to the mob because it is most convenient, that is all there is to it.
EDIT:
"By allowing Alice to remain on DT1 she would enable a suspected embezzler and convicted thief onto DT2."
Please do source the substantiation for these claims in the non-theoretical context if you will.
|
|
|
|
You caught me red handed using the trust system exactly as it was intended building a reputation trading over almost a decade. We can't all shake down the user base indiscriminately tagging people assembly line style in order to give the appearance of serving the community like you Vod. I am sure this post has nothing to do with your years long bunny boiling level of obsession with me does it now Mr. Sad Party Magician? Get some new tricks, the sponge balls and hiding a quarter behind the ear is getting old. To be clear - I'm stating that TECSHARE's trust ratings should not be considered honest and there is an agenda behind his trust list manipulation. He is scamming the trust system. :/
I think one can use ~TECSHARE to solve this issue and to avoid his ratings. He is in DT due to the community inclusions he has received, it cannot be stated as scamming the trust system nor manipulation. Or you could solve this issue by using ~Vod, I would think that would be a more effective solution, especially since he is abusing the trust system again to play his little petty games of retribution. Vod 2019-09-09 Reference " This profile has fundamentally abused the trust system, trading positive trust with as many others as possible to get on Default Trust. See reference and the BPIP DT Change Log for examples. Do not trust this profile's trust of others by adding ~TECSHARE to your personal trust list. " |
|
|
|
The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.
Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations. Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing. I know better than waste my time trying to make sense of your ramblings. I'm reasonably certain though that I didn't say anything about fraud nor is fraud the only reason to exclude someone so knock yourself out arguing that non-existent claim. That is a rather convenient excuse to not substantiate any of your claims. No one said fraud was the only reason to exclude people, you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud, so that is a directly relevant response to your argument. |
|
|
|
The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.
Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations. Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing. |
|
|
|
This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud?
Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying. The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist. Tell me, exactly what am I lying about? Use quotes and references. The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay. |
|
|
|
Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution.
Me either. Personally, I just don't like you, as you are a dickhead. Cheers.  Thanks for the public admission you value your whims more than the constitution of the trust system and overall well being of the community. What you are describing is called a popularity contest, not a trust system. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public.
You do realize that anyone can look at BitcoinSupremo's rap sheet and see that you're lying? Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not.
Also contradicted by publicly available information. This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud? Funny how everyone is talking 100% about his words and not one bit about the supposed fraud he is responsible for, and which I don't see in any of those ratings. That is just a log of DT changes. All that that is, is a log of when it happened, not why it happened. You are free to make baseless insinuations, but that doesn't make it factual or even meaningful. I included and excluded people as new information became available, not based on if they included me or not. I also have proof of the contrary, and it is far more convincing than your insinuation. |
|
|
|
This couldn't be retribution for calling you out in this thread could it OP? Interesting timing. I especially like the part where you are mining for intelligence. I expect you to hit molten magma before you find any. Serves me right for trying to help people solve their issues amiright? The intent of this three ring circus is clear. This is a collection of OCD ass hat wanna be tyrants who have all at one point or another been confronted by me for their own PERSONAL behavior or ideas, and since then they have been collecting together and have been desperately thirsty for retribution, but finding nothing to grasp on to have had to resort to proxies and guilt via association. I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason. Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle. This is just a sad excuse for a collection of former despots taking revenge. None of these people here making all kinds of accusations of racism, homophobia, etc give a fuck about any of these things, they are here because they think they can use it to "get me". Its pathetic and transparent. Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution. |
|
|
|
fabricated quote by TECSHARE..., blah, blah
Of course, devoid of any valid argument, you once again for the third time default back to accusations of racism and sexism shortly before running away like a coward so you don't look even more stupid trying to craft a sensible reply. Very convincing. You are delusional. LOL. Be angry for all I care. This anger against everything and everyone who disagrees with you will eat you alive one day. Cool story bro. At least I don't need to mirror your own words back to you in lieu of having an original thought. |
|
|
|
You don't share my belief system?
BIGOT! SEXIST! NAZI! HOMOPHOBE!
Of course, devoid of any valid argument, you once again for the third time default back to accusations of racism and sexism shortly before running away like a coward so you don't look even more stupid trying to craft a sensible reply. Very convincing. |
|
|
|
ABitNut, I am requesting on StonerStanley's behalf that you please remove your negative rating for him. He has taken the first conciliatory step towards mutual restoration, and your original rating seems somewhat baseless.
I retract my previous request for resolution for this user. He is too dumb and rude for his own good. You guys can have this one, he has it all under control. You are just a loser who didn't succeed so now you are trying to make everybody thinking that it is my fault. Vod and others are right about you. You suck mannnnn  It absolutely is your fault. I don't owe you my time to try to fix your problems. I was spending my time and reputation defending you to try to fix your problems with zero benefit to myself, but I suck huh? I am sure you have a bright future here dipshit. EDIT: I called them clowns not monkeys. EDIT 2: Hahaha. Way to prove me wrong by cutting your nose off to spite your face. Good show. BTW, never said you needed me. You are however too dumb to know how to treat people, so as a result any project you engage in will fail. It has nothing to do with me. EDIT 3: You make a public thread asking for help to resolve your situation then spit in the face of the one person who bothers to make any effort to help you? " StonerStanley 2019-09-08 He tried to make me thinking that it is my fault if he add a liar into the "trust" feedback list. Very dishonest person, don't deal with him, maybe a scammer. " Then you cry about how everyone is dishonest, egotistical, liars. You are too dumb to operate heavy machinery let alone an ICO. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
