DefaultTrust changes

[LoyceV]

I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system.

I'm not against any of that But I don't expect there will ever be "rules" for the Trust system. The best we can do are guidelines (see mine or theymos').

So question: can you understand why I excluded peloso but not Last of the V8s?

[1715430354]

1715430354

[1715430354]

1715430354

[DooMAD]

I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system.

"Equitable trust" sounds like some sort of financial group.  Trust isn't meant to be equitable.  Trust is earned.  You aren't just entitled to it because you think you deserve it.

What you want doesn't come into it.  The only thing that matters is who people trust and who people don't trust.  If people don't trust you, there is no rule that can change that.  So if you want something to change, maybe consider starting with your conduct. 

Whether you choose to take this as a general observation or a personal attack is up to you, but I find the more people bitch about the trust system, the more suspiciously I view them.  Maybe take a break from this little campaign of yours and stop trying so damn hard.  You probably aren't doing your cause any favours in the eyes of others. 

[hacker1001101001]

Whether you choose to take this as a general observation or a personal attack is up to you, but I find the more people bitch about the trust system, the more suspiciously I view them.  Maybe take a break from this little campaign of yours and stop trying so damn hard.  You probably aren't doing your cause any favours in the eyes of others. 

You probably know dump shit of what's happening around and your statement reflects to be selfish at most. Don't fall into the above Jolly Molly traps.

[philipma1957]

A quote literally answering the question you were presenting is not good enough?

I addressed that quote here and also in my follow up question here:

Last of the V8s is an official owner of an extra large tin of ball polish, he gets a pass.

I'm still unsure what exactly he's being accused of. Wiping his Trust list, using only DefaultTrust, and then making a new Trust list doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.

I'm still not sure what you (@TECSHARE) are trying to say: do you want V8 to not get a pass? Or do you want others to get a pass too?

I commend you and several other members that continue to engage with them in a civil manner even though you get next to nothing in return from them in simple coherent messages. I wish I had your temperament and patience to deal with these attention seeking good-for-nothing members that have created their own gang within a gang to cause disruption to the forum but it was easier for me to simply give up and IGNORE them all.

I've put some users on ignore, but TECSHARE isn't one of them, I don't consider him to be "bad". He seems to be on a mission to improve the Trust system, I think his intentions are good, and he sticks to his believes even though many people seem to disagree.

I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system.

as do i, but I also want world peace, no racism ,more proper wealth distribution and the end of all pandemics.

None of which is very likely to happen.

[JollyGood]

This is an excellent post which basically captures the issue at the crux of the argument being put forward by disgruntled and disillusioned members along with the general motives behind those instigating any so-called campaign for change.

I think as was pointed out by a respectful member in another thread some time ago, TECSHARE seems to be adding and removing users on a reciprocal basis for ulterior motives probably based around trying to create a gang-within-a-gang to cause disunity here but having said maybe I should unIGNORE him and try to engage with him on some level such as the manner in which LoyceV is trying.

I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system.

"Equitable trust" sounds like some sort of financial group.  Trust isn't meant to be equitable.  Trust is earned.  You aren't just entitled to it because you think you deserve it.

What you want doesn't come into it.  The only thing that matters is who people trust and who people don't trust.  If people don't trust you, there is no rule that can change that.  So if you want something to change, maybe consider starting with your conduct. 

Whether you choose to take this as a general observation or a personal attack is up to you, but I find the more people bitch about the trust system, the more suspiciously I view them.  Maybe take a break from this little campaign of yours and stop trying so damn hard.  You probably aren't doing your cause any favours in the eyes of others. 

[marlboroza]

~

You are pure evil

So question: can you understand why I excluded peloso but not Last of the V8s?

I don't think you will get answer to this one, techy will probably accuse you that you are part of the gang.

He seems to be on a mission to improve the Trust system, I think his intentions are good, and he sticks to his believes even though many people seem to disagree.

Not really, T likes to add people to his trust list out of spite and he has long history of reciprocal inclusions AKA scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, not to mention baseless accusations against people he doesn't like. Everything is documented, you just have to read few topics and follow some links.

[TECSHARE]

I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system.

I'm not against any of that But I don't expect there will ever be "rules" for the Trust system.

And that's why it will remain broken because Theymos insists on leaving everything arbitrary, open to selective interpretation, and systemic abuse.

as do i, but I also want world peace, no racism ,more proper wealth distribution and the end of all pandemics.

None of which is very likely to happen.

Except all I am advocating for is some clear and objective standards, not anything as lofty as world peace.

I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system.

"Equitable trust" sounds like some sort of financial group.  Trust isn't meant to be equitable.  Trust is earned.  You aren't just entitled to it because you think you deserve it.

What you want doesn't come into it.  The only thing that matters is who people trust and who people don't trust.  If people don't trust you, there is no rule that can change that.  So if you want something to change, maybe consider starting with your conduct.  

Whether you choose to take this as a general observation or a personal attack is up to you, but I find the more people bitch about the trust system, the more suspiciously I view them.  Maybe take a break from this little campaign of yours and stop trying so damn hard.  You probably aren't doing your cause any favours in the eyes of others.  

Weird you had to literally manufacture a quote there to make your point. I never said "Equitable trust". You aren't interested in what I actually said, only what you can re-frame my argument (AKA strawman) to mean so you have a hope of some semblance of having an argument against it. What we have isn't a "trust system" is it a "popularity system". It is amazing how desperate people like you are to make this about me while you simultaneously chastise for making it about me when I attempt to defend myself. If you got to be any more full of shit you would burst.

[Vod]

Techy, leading by example is more powerful than a decade of complaining.  Until you do that, I doubt you are serious. 

[nutildah]

From a different thread:

Peloso told me I should remove him from my distrust list or else he would distrust me and I would lose my DT 1 rank - funny side note, I didn't even realize I was DT 1 but of course I asked him what he wants to achieve with his pm - well, he sent 2-3 more blackmail pm's and then distrusted me - all I said then was "see, that's exactly why someone like you should not be on my trust list, you proved me right".

I don't understand why people continue to include Peloso in their trust list.

It's possible to believe Peloso is trustworthy without including him in your trust list. That's what positive feedback is for. He may very well be trustworthy when it comes to trades and business, but he is clearly bent on misusing DT.

My opinion is that those who include Peloso have questionable judgment when it comes trust system use. They are letting this guy drag the whole system down for the sake of having an additional inclusion. Surely they don't actually think he demonstrates good judgment when it comes to forming a trust list.

[Lafu]

From a different thread:

Peloso told me I should remove him from my distrust list or else he would distrust me and I would lose my DT 1 rank - funny side note, I didn't even realize I was DT 1 but of course I asked him what he wants to achieve with his pm - well, he sent 2-3 more blackmail pm's and then distrusted me - all I said then was "see, that's exactly why someone like you should not be on my trust list, you proved me right".

I don't understand why people continue to include Peloso in their trust list.

It's possible to believe Peloso is trustworthy without including him in your trust list. That's what positive feedback is for. He may very well be trustworthy when it comes to trades and business, but he is clearly bent on misusing DT.

My opinion is that those who include Peloso have questionable judgment when it comes trust system use. They are letting this guy drag the whole system down for the sake of having an additional inclusion. Surely they don't actually think he demonstrates good judgment when it comes to forming a trust list.

He has done that to many others also in the last weeks or months !
I got last year in December 2 Pms about to remove him from my Distrust list .
And how he has done in the last months and weeks he only has given a proof of dont understanding that all or realy was on his way to manipulate the DT.

[suchmoon]

My opinion is that those who include Peloso have questionable judgment when it comes trust system use. They are letting this guy drag the whole system down for the sake of having an additional inclusion. Surely they don't actually think he demonstrates good judgment when it comes to forming a trust list.

Another big factor is "you can't tell me what to do with my trust list". There are some users who don't need that additional inclusion but also don't want to be seen as giving in to some elk guy and... bitchmoon or whatever the fuck they called me.

[LoyceV]

My opinion is that those who include Peloso have questionable judgment when it comes trust system use. They are letting this guy drag the whole system down for the sake of having an additional inclusion. Surely they don't actually think he demonstrates good judgment when it comes to forming a trust list.

Adding the wrong people to your Trust list for a short-term inclusion means that long-term, you'll loose inclusions from the right people.

Peloso has so many mutual inclusions:

Trust list for: peloso (Trust: +3 / =3 / -3) (DT1 (-11) 168 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-06-20_Sat_05.04h)

peloso's judgement is Trusted by:
1. Balthazar (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (315 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. cryptohunter (Trust: +1 / =2 / -3) (167 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. american911 (Trust: neutral) (16 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. andulolika (Trust: #  +1 / =1 / -5) (23 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. z0n0 (Trust: neutral) (6 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. bamb (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. klarki (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (6) 203 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. mhanbostanci (Trust: +2 / =0 / -2) (317 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. Removed WhiteManWhite (Trust: neutral) (DT1! (6) 105 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. kzv (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (723 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. Aceeakell (Trust: neutral) (45 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. endlasuresh (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (3 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. bobita (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 562 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. Vispilio (Trust: +3 / =2 / -1) (DT1 (-1) 960 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. imhoneer (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 490 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. wolwoo (Trust: +0 / =3 / -2) (656 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. mak013 (Trust: neutral) (67 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. Zuzma (Trust: neutral) (121 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. KTChampions (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (3) 904 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. 3meek (Trust: neutral) (DT1 (-3) 227 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. Bazinga442 (Trust: +0 / =0 / -6) (24 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
21. trendcoin (Trust: neutral) (581 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. miyav (Trust: neutral) (88 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. madnessteat (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (8) 1023 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. ultofresto (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. The0ldl_lser (Trust: neutral) (169 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
26. H8bussesNbicycles (Trust: +0 / =1 / -10) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27. ito-marketing (Trust: +0 / =0 / -3) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
28. gwsukabokepjepang (Trust: +0 / =0 / -9) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
29. elmanchez (Trust: +3 / =4 / -0) (139 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. The-One-Above-All (Trust: #  +0 / =0 / -15) (56 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. DragonDance (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (115 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
32. Ratimov (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (10) 1461 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
33. zasad@ (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (7) 1045 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list: backscratchers: users agree, they trust or distrust each other.

And 2 weeks earlier, he somehow included many previously excluded users, while they still exclude him:

Trust list for: peloso (Trust: +2 / =3 / -3) (DT1 (-9) 164 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-06-06_Sat_05.05h)

peloso Trusts these users' judgement:
7. NEW Foxpup (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (3) 981 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. NEW TheNewAnon135246 (Trust: +24 / =0 / -0) (931 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. NEW SFR10 (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (422 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. NEW TwitchySeal (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (622 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
38. NEW marlboroza (Trust: +13 / =1 / -1) (1528 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
41. NEW IconFirm (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (58 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
42. NEW TheUltraElite (Trust: neutral) (380 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
52. NEW JollyGood (Trust: +10 / =1 / -4) (632 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
63. NEW o_e_l_e_o (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (16) 4223 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
69. NEW asche (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (2) 1125 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
71. NEW alia << Lol! (Trust: +0 / =0 / -11) (113 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
72. NEW morvillz7z (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1299 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

peloso Distrusts these users' judgement:
4. Removed ~Foxpup (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (3) 981 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. Removed ~TheNewAnon135246 (Trust: +24 / =0 / -0) (931 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. Removed ~SFR10 (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (422 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. Removed ~TwitchySeal (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (622 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. Removed ~marlboroza (Trust: +13 / =1 / -1) (1528 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. Removed ~IconFirm (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (58 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. Removed ~TheUltraElite (Trust: neutral) (380 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. Removed ~JollyGood (Trust: +10 / =1 / -4) (632 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. Removed ~o_e_l_e_o (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (16) 4223 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. Removed ~asche (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (2) 1125 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. Removed ~alia (Trust: +0 / =0 / -11) (113 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. Removed ~morvillz7z (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1299 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list: backstabbers: users disagree, one user trust the other, while the other distrust him.

Such a sudden complete change of heart on so many people's judgement!

So question: can you understand why I excluded peloso but not Last of the V8s?

I don't think you will get answer to this one

I was really hoping you'd be wrong, but it looks like you're right.

[LoyceV]

... and do you feel I have added "the wrong" kinds of people?

I'll check a few, most of those names I don't recognize:

• canton: hasn't left any feedback. He sold his trusted bitcoin paper wallet website to a scammer, so even if his judgement could be trusted in the past, I wouldn't trust it anymore.
• doof: hasn't left any feedback
• lavajumper: hasn't left any feedback
• [lyno: only left feedback to you (Trust selfscratching)

• Nerull: hasn't left any feedback
• miningpoolhub: hasn't left any feedback

There are more like this, I haven't checked them all. How can you Trust someone's judgement on feedback if they haven't demonstrated it yet?

Update: where did your post go?

[DooMAD]

What we have isn't a "trust system" is it a "popularity system". It is amazing how desperate people like you are to make this about me while you simultaneously chastise for making it about me when I attempt to defend myself.

You are making it about you.  People use the trust system to decide whose ratings they want to include and exclude, as they're perfectly entitled to do.  Then you complain that everything they're doing is because they don't like you and that there should be rules in place to prevent people including and excluding who they want because apparently it's all a vendetta against you.  

You accuse others of making it personal, they start accusing you of stuff and it becomes yet another shitty thread full of pointless drama.  You wouldn't need to "defend yourself" if you hadn't opened the hostilities and just kept your mouth shut to begin with.  Again, stop being such a try-hard.  It's annoying.  If you really do believe it's a popularity contest, you'd think you'd be smarter than to piss people off so readily.  Please give it a rest.

[peloso]

all the manipulations are just a defensive reaction due to the massive manipulations by the Elk, Suchkamun, Lauda, Lafu, Tman and other gandons who excluded me
in my case, you need to look for causal relationships

exclusions and the all trust system does not affect my relations with partners and in the trade, no one of them interested feedback, they trusted and continue to trust me.
In theory, this may affect potential partners of newbies, but the specifics of my activity are such that me don't need newbies

so the trust system is very corrupted game system

[Timelord2067]

... and do you feel I have added "the wrong" kinds of people?

I'll check a few, most of those names I don't recognize:

• canton: hasn't left any feedback. He sold his trusted bitcoin paper wallet website to a scammer, so even if his judgement could be trusted in the past, I wouldn't trust it anymore.
• doof: hasn't left any feedback
• lavajumper: hasn't left any feedback
• lyno: only left feedback to you (Trust selfscratching)
• Nerull: hasn't left any feedback
• miningpoolhub: hasn't left any feedback

There are more like this, I haven't checked them all. How can you Trust someone's judgement on feedback if they haven't demonstrated it yet?

Update: where did your post go?

• canton: hasn't left any feedback. He sold his trusted bitcoin paper wallet website to a scammer, so even if his judgement could be trusted in the past, I wouldn't trust it anymore.

I wasn't aware of that - have removed his name.

• lavajumper: hasn't left any feedback
• Nerull: hasn't left any feedback
• lyno: only left feedback to you (Trust selfscratching)

All three are from the SexCoin community, the first two are on the team's core group (such as it is).  lavajumper is the Dev and has done a lot of work to recover funds hacked from Cryptopia 18 months ago in the first wave of their hacks, (and then their second wave of hacks which put them out of business) while lyno and I have done numerous trades crypto <-> PayPal.  Mostly via the Sexcoin forum or Slack/Discord.  From recollection Nerull and I have done one or two trades also (but not as many as Lyno).  IIRC Nerull lives about 150 miles away from where I live here in SEQ, so we talked about meeting up, but never really made firm plans.

As with lyno, hedgy73 and I have done PP to BTC trade/s and was one of the original ten that I added to my list.

• lyno: only left feedback to you (Trust selfscratching)

Lyno has just seven merits so his side of the "self-scratching" doesn't really make a difference - don't you agree?

• doof: hasn't left any feedback

Lucas Cullen (doof) was the organiser of meetups here in Brisbane and also co-founded Get Paid in BitCoin - deposit fiat money into their bank account - receive bitcoin fairly soon afterwards.  

Not everyone who is associated with bitcoin is interested in being active on the bitcointalk forum on a daily basis.

• miningpoolhub: hasn't left any feedback

findblocks.com did a lot of work for a number of alts including sexcoin.  Have removed findblocks.com (UK) and miningpoolhub (who is based in NY/USA and their mining site looks to be inactive) to prevent any "misunderstandings"

I don't mine any-more.


roughswap I've bought gems from that then took three months to arrive (due to covid-19 postal delays).

Ratimov / geophphreigh / zasad@ were nominated as "Newbie of the Year" on the back of their meritorious post history.

chronicsky had been distrusted, but he contacted me concerning the previously negative trust feedback I'd given him, we worked through the evidence I'd presented and he gave a plausible alternate explanation as is evidenced in our now neutral trust feedback of each other.  I haven't had dealings with him prior to our two contacts, nore have we contacted each-other since, so I have now removed my DT "trust" before anyone theorises why I changed my negative to a positive.

Contrary to what trolls would have you believe, when person's whom I have given negative trust feedback to through my work exposing alts contact me, I always discuss with them their claims and usually simply represent the various connections such as shared wallet addresses,

Most, if not all of the DT1 users who have given me negative DT distrust have at one point or another traded in accounts which causes instability in the forum (and in real life too)... which is why I am unconcerned with the number eleven, or sixteen... they are just numbers ... numbers of account peddlers ...

KWH sort me out for information I had about some users very early on, (at a time when I was probably pre hero member) we exchanged some PM's and is another one of my original list of ten.  I'd be interested to read why I should distrust him/remove him from my trust list simply because he is not active at the moment. (I count five other DT1's who have him on their trust list even now - in saying that, the number of DT1 who trust Zepher as at today stands at nine)

RHavar came up with a method of escrow using two of three wallets which holds up to scrutiny.  This: http://coinb.in/#newTimeLocked I can't get to work so I wouldn't recommend to anyone until I can find out what isn't working for me.

SFR10 has access to the Google Spread Sheet for the Known Alts account, so I am trusting that he will do data entry work as promised.  (Were he to vandalise that spread sheet, he would be UNtrustworthy. QED)

jackg does interest free lightning network loans (as do I).

Neopotism's posts hit the nail on the head hitting a very raw nerve - so much so an unnamed admin/mod nuked their work and then @theymos personally intervened to restore their posts.  (there were some ten posts in all, but alas, only the three that had receive merits have been restored).  You're in a position to see that they had indeed posted more than thrice, so you can confirm what I just said is correct.

actmyname is one of my original list of ten and contributes to the known alts thread from time to time.

Update: where did your post go?

After I posted, I had a change of thought and was going to post something similar to what I've just written after I'd slept on it.  Given you've asked the questions, the ball is now in play.

I would appreciate it if you could post an update of my list of persons I trust post today's updates please?


Have I missed anyone?

Any questions?

[JaredKaragen]

What we have isn't a "trust system" is it a "popularity system". It is amazing how desperate people like you are to make this about me while you simultaneously chastise for making it about me when I attempt to defend myself.

You are making it about you.  People use the trust system to decide whose ratings they want to include and exclude, as they're perfectly entitled to do.  Then you complain that everything they're doing is because they don't like you and that there should be rules in place to prevent people including and excluding who they want because apparently it's all a vendetta against you.  

You accuse others of making it personal, they start accusing you of stuff and it becomes yet another shitty thread full of pointless drama.  You wouldn't need to "defend yourself" if you hadn't opened the hostilities and just kept your mouth shut to begin with.  Again, stop being such a try-hard.  It's annoying.  If you really do believe it's a popularity contest, you'd think you'd be smarter than to piss people off so readily.  Please give it a rest.

To be fair:  I have witnessed TEC's claim of trust abuse first hand in a recent thread.     
Some of his claims are definitely correct; and my chain of calling out vod in two threads recently paints a clear picture of this exact type of abuse that happens.

I will leave it at that.  Nothing more, nothing less.   Take it as you will.

[hacker1001101001]

What we have isn't a "trust system" is it a "popularity system". It is amazing how desperate people like you are to make this about me while you simultaneously chastise for making it about me when I attempt to defend myself.

You are making it about you.  People use the trust system to decide whose ratings they want to include and exclude, as they're perfectly entitled to do.  Then you complain that everything they're doing is because they don't like you and that there should be rules in place to prevent people including and excluding who they want because apparently it's all a vendetta against you.  

You accuse others of making it personal, they start accusing you of stuff and it becomes yet another shitty thread full of pointless drama.  You wouldn't need to "defend yourself" if you hadn't opened the hostilities and just kept your mouth shut to begin with.  Again, stop being such a try-hard.  It's annoying.  If you really do believe it's a popularity contest, you'd think you'd be smarter than to piss people off so readily.  Please give it a rest.

To be fair:  I have witnessed TEC's claim of trust abuse first hand in a recent thread.    
Some of his claims are definitely correct; and my chain of calling out vod in two threads recently paints a clear picture of this exact type of abuse that happens.

I will leave it at that.  Nothing more, nothing less.   Take it as you will.

This type of dump ChipMixer Legendaries always stir the subject with some nonsense information and perceptions, to keep up with their support and power as they feel weak and on the other hand they are not afraid of publicly asking justice fighter's to keep their mouth shut to begin with. Pretty Toxic in its own way.

[JaredKaragen]

This type of dump ChipMixer Legendaries always stir the subject with some nonsense information and perceptions, to keep up with their support and power as they feel weak and on the other hand they are not afraid of publicly asking justice fighter's to keep their mouth shut to begin with. Pretty Toxic in its own way.

I 100% feel the sentiment.... which is why I typically stay out of it unless I notice something that needs pointed out.

[JollyGood]

How much longer will this attention-seeker hacker1001101001 continue to post trash? Ever since he was outed as an alt-account operator by marlboroza in this thread he has been posting nonsense: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0

hacker1001101001 is also known as "Mr Pay Me And I Will Bump Your Threads Using Multiple Alt-Accounts" has been an active part of the group trying to create disharmony in the forum.

Whether you choose to take this as a general observation or a personal attack is up to you, but I find the more people bitch about the trust system, the more suspiciously I view them.  Maybe take a break from this little campaign of yours and stop trying so damn hard.  You probably aren't doing your cause any favours in the eyes of others. 

You probably know dump shit of what's happening around and your statement reflects to be selfish at most. Don't fall into the above Jolly Molly traps.