nutildah got red trust recent hours. Is the red trust fairly for him?

[TECSHARE]

More evading the question.

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for you to tell me why you personally think that rating is not valid.

Your exact words were these:

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

I thoroughly complied with your request. This is entirely based on my opinion, which holds in regard the opinions of others.

Edit: BTW, thanks suchmoon, I appreciate your kind words, and your earlier guidance in matters surrounding what DT should be used for.

Really, you haven't. The post you claim answers my question is a purposely overly inclusive list of other people's opinions, then your version of the narrative. You have not once in your own words told me why you think iCEBREAKER's rating for you is invalid. If any one is curious, nutilda refuses to answer this question because they know I might later hold them to those same standards that they themselves held to others. Nutilda can't have that now can they?

[nutildah]

More evading the question.

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for you to tell me why you personally think that rating is not valid.

Your exact words were these:

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

I thoroughly complied with your request. This is entirely based on my opinion, which holds in regard the opinions of others.

Edit: BTW, thanks suchmoon, I appreciate your kind words, and your earlier guidance in matters surrounding what DT should be used for.

Really, you haven't. The post you claim answers my question is a purposely overly inclusive list of other people's opinions, then your version of the narrative. You have not once in your own words told me why you think iCEBREAKER's rating for you is invalid. If any one is curious, nutilda refuses to answer this question because they know I might later hold them to those same standards that they themselves held to others. Nutilda can't have that no can they?

Because trust should be reserved for matters directly involving finance: the exchange of goods and services for crypto or money. It shouldn't be used because somebody said something that you disagree with.

But I already know any answer I give you will not suffice. I should have stuck to ignoring you; you're clearly trolling me at this point. I think everybody else can see what is going on here. This is what you do, you talk in circles until your "opponent" gets bored and moves on, and then you can declare victory.

It would be in your own best interest and reflect your own endlessly-explained belief system if you removed iCEBREAKER from your trust list. Not doing so is clearly hypocritical on your part. Have a terrific day.

/end of discussion

[TECSHARE]

Really, you haven't. The post you claim answers my question is a purposely overly inclusive list of other people's opinions, then your version of the narrative. You have not once in your own words told me why you think iCEBREAKER's rating for you is invalid. If any one is curious, nutilda refuses to answer this question because they know I might later hold them to those same standards that they themselves held to others. Nutilda can't have that no can they?

Because trust should be reserved for matters directly involving finance: the exchange of goods and services for crypto or money. It shouldn't be used because somebody said something that you disagree with.

But I already know any answer I give you will not suffice. I should have stuck to ignoring you; you're clearly trolling me at this point. I think everybody else can see what is going on here. This is what you do, you talk in circles until your "opponent" gets bored and moves on, and then you can declare victory.

It would be in your own best interest and reflect your own endlessly-explained belief system if you removed iCEBREAKER from your trust list. Not doing so is clearly hypocritical on your part. Have a terrific day.

/end of discussion

[waves magic wand and starts discussion again]

Ok, so it seems to me his comment was in fact directly involving finance. If I say I really like XYZ gambling site, and they are actually a fraud and you redtag me for it, are you not negative rating me for what I said?

Lets look at a few examples from your own ratings:


"bataklik   2019-02-23   0.00000000   Reference   Promoter of scam project that is pretending to be a successful project. Please see here for scam accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110191.0 . This user's account has likely been hacked and is untrustworthy. "

"BrieMiller   2019-02-22   0.00000000   Reference   Promotion of HYIP products, part of a bumping service that bumps threads with low-value posts. Not genuinely concerned with the outcome of projects. Do not trust this user or take any of their questions seriously. "

"cryptobenn   2018-12-02   0.00000000   Reference   Promoting the ETH token scam "FREE Coin" "


There are more but I would rather not be here all day. I am not even saying your ratings shouldn't have been left, maybe they should, but that is irrelevant.

It seems to me iCEBREAKER's rating for you is functionally indistinguishable from these ratings you have left for others as defined by your own terms of what makes it invalid. Being critical of some one is not trolling just because you are having trouble dealing with it. I also like the nice touch of you calling me a hypocrite in a classic Alinski style refractory tactic to re-frame this about me when the post is literally about you and your received rating. I think everyone can see what is happening here, yes. Have nice day.

[The Cryptovator]

Confused, why nutildah's rating -1: -1 / +1 showing to me Seems iCEBREAKER & shasan's feedback's visible to me by default. I think due to I have selected dept#2. Especially shasan feedback's make me always confused, because he had sent lot of positive feedback's who took loan from him even they are newbie account. I really don't think its necessary, even sent 3 feedback's to nutildah. Is it necessary? I think a lender could leave positive feedback's if he was on risk. However everyone have freedom to leave feedback but I don't like to see this kind of feedback's. Sorry for that but I have to exclude iCEBREAKER & shasan since they aren't on DT but feedback's is annoying me especially when I see a newbie green trusted by shasan. I don't know who is from my trust list added them, also I can't force anyone to remove from their trust list. But if they removed I will also remove my exclusion. I have no problem with both of them except visibility of trust rating.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Because you have your depth set to 2, you will see many feedbacks that you don't necessarily agree with. The default depth of 2 works if you are using Default Trust, as "Default Trust" as a concept is level 0, DT1 members are level 1, and the people they trust become level 2. If you set up your own customized trust list, the people you choose become level 0, the people they trust become level 1, and the people they (the level 1s) trust become level 2, so you effectively end up with an extra layer of trust that you don't necessarily want.

For you iCEBREAKER will be level 1, as he is trusted by Lauda, who you have included in your level 0. shasan will be level 2 for you, as he is trusted by nutildah who is level 1 for you because he is in turn trusted by yogg, tmfp, Slow death, and xtraelv, who are all on your trust list (level 0).

Most people with a custom trust list generally set their depth to 1 rather than 2.

[The Cryptovator]

Most people with a custom trust list generally set their depth to 1 rather than 2.

Also I had set depth#1, buy problem is all DT2 feedback's hide to me from original DT list. That means I will not able to see DT2 feedback's from original DT list. That's why I again return it depth#2. If select depth 1 then I become more confuse because I can't see DT2 feedback's.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Also I had set depth#1, buy problem is all DT2 feedback's hide to me from original DT list. That means I will not able to see DT2 feedback's from original DT list.

You can add ";dt" to the end of any page (thread, profile, trust page, etc.) to see it as if you were using Default Trust at depth 2 (the default settings). Also, if you want that view all the time, DarkStar_ has created a Tampermonkey script here which will do that for you. That way you can see everything as if it were default trust, whilst maintaining your own customized trust list.

[nutildah]

Ok, so it seems to me his comment was in fact directly involving finance. If I say I really like XYZ gambling site, and they are actually a fraud and you redtag me for it, are you not negative rating me for what I said?

His comment referenced me posting a news story about Monero. Has nothing to do with Dash. The Dash part of his comment has nothing to do with finance. It stemmed from when I asked him what was up with his multi-year obsession with trolling Dash. If you want to argue that does have to do with finance, OK fine, but as far as them actually being a fraud is concerned, that point is not well evidenced by iCEBREAKER. As I said previously I don't even hold Dash anymore, I was just intrigued when I saw iCEBREAKER had returned to continue his epic trolling saga.

After seeing my comment, he dug up and commented on several old threads of mine, looking for a reason to red tag me I suppose.

Lets look at a few examples from your own ratings:


"bataklik   2019-02-23   0.00000000   Reference   Promoter of scam project that is pretending to be a successful project. Please see here for scam accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110191.0 . This user's account has likely been hacked and is untrustworthy. "

"BrieMiller   2019-02-22   0.00000000   Reference   Promotion of HYIP products, part of a bumping service that bumps threads with low-value posts. Not genuinely concerned with the outcome of projects. Do not trust this user or take any of their questions seriously. "

"cryptobenn   2018-12-02   0.00000000   Reference   Promoting the ETH token scam "FREE Coin" "


There are more but I would rather not be here all day. I am not even saying your ratings shouldn't have been left, maybe they should, but that is irrelevant.

It seems to me iCEBREAKER's rating for you is functionally indistinguishable from these ratings you have left for others as defined by your own terms of what makes it invalid. Being critical of some one is not trolling just because you are having trouble dealing with it.

The difference is he left his rating for me spreading what he considered to be "fake news." Has nothing to do with finance or transactions. My ratings all implicate the user of having financially-related motivations and being involved in what is potentially a scam, and they are backed by evidence displayed in the referenced link.

Do you believe "being critical of some one" is a good reason to leave a negative trust? If the answer is "no," then you should remove iCEBREAKER from your inclusions.

[Thule]

@cryptohunter

Evan's massive Instamine

Is it our Evan from Quark who created over 10 coins with instamine on that forum ?

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter

Evan's massive Instamine

Is it our Evan from Quark who created over 10 coins with instamine on that forum ?

No this is evan duffield this is a captive instamine ( a premine).

[TECSHARE]

Ok, so it seems to me his comment was in fact directly involving finance. If I say I really like XYZ gambling site, and they are actually a fraud and you redtag me for it, are you not negative rating me for what I said?

His comment referenced me posting a news story about Monero. Has nothing to do with Dash. The Dash part of his comment has nothing to do with finance. It stemmed from when I asked him what was up with his multi-year obsession with trolling Dash. If you want to argue that does have to do with finance, OK fine, but as far as them actually being a fraud is concerned, that point is not well evidenced by iCEBREAKER. As I said previously I don't even hold Dash anymore, I was just intrigued when I saw iCEBREAKER had returned to continue his epic trolling saga.

After seeing my comment, he dug up and commented on several old threads of mine, looking for a reason to red tag me I suppose.

Lets look at a few examples from your own ratings:


"bataklik   2019-02-23   0.00000000   Reference   Promoter of scam project that is pretending to be a successful project. Please see here for scam accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110191.0 . This user's account has likely been hacked and is untrustworthy. "

"BrieMiller   2019-02-22   0.00000000   Reference   Promotion of HYIP products, part of a bumping service that bumps threads with low-value posts. Not genuinely concerned with the outcome of projects. Do not trust this user or take any of their questions seriously. "

"cryptobenn   2018-12-02   0.00000000   Reference   Promoting the ETH token scam "FREE Coin" "


There are more but I would rather not be here all day. I am not even saying your ratings shouldn't have been left, maybe they should, but that is irrelevant.

It seems to me iCEBREAKER's rating for you is functionally indistinguishable from these ratings you have left for others as defined by your own terms of what makes it invalid. Being critical of some one is not trolling just because you are having trouble dealing with it.

The difference is he left his rating for me spreading what he considered to be "fake news." Has nothing to do with finance or transactions. My ratings all implicate the user of having financially-related motivations and being involved in what is potentially a scam, and they are backed by evidence displayed in the referenced link.

Do you believe "being critical of some one" is a good reason to leave a negative trust? If the answer is "no," then you should remove iCEBREAKER from your inclusions.

He specifically referenced feedback you have left for the DASH dev (which it appears has been deleted since, I am not sure I don't see it) as well as your posts about Monero. Also you again have left negative ratings for others simply for promoting projects that you feel are not legitimate. If those ratings are valid for you to leave I see no reason why his rating left for you should not be valid. Your ratings have just as much to do with "financial transactions" as yours seeing as you provided zero evidence to support your claims.

Usually I might be inclined to discuss this rating with him, but you seem intent on insisting you have a right to leave ratings like this for others while claiming ratings motivated by the exact same type of activity are invalid when left for you. I am willing to reconsider actions to resolve this if you are willing to start observing a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws when leaving negative ratings. Until then all I see is a hypocrite crying that they got a tiny taste of what they dish out to others freely without evidence.

[TECSHARE]

I found this in Nutildah's trust ratings today and found it rather interesting... usually this would be grounds for completely removing any credibility for an account and red tagging it to the center of the Earth, but as usual, some people around here are more equal than others...


Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

"Account for sale. Archived page if he deleted the thread.

https://archive.is/BBMFH "

[Findingnemo]

I found this in Nutildah's trust ratings today and found it rather interesting... usually this would be grounds for completely removing any credibility for an account and red tagging it to the center of the Earth, but as usual, some people around here are more equal than others...


Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

"Account for sale. Archived page if he deleted the thread.

https://archive.is/BBMFH "

You will be receiving a comment like this "In 2016 the account sales were allowed in this forum and then later it was discouraged" by the forum rules so no one is going to tag that account since it is created in 2016.

Anyone knows here since when account sales were considered as untrustworthy behaviour? Exact date will be appreciated.

[TECSHARE]

I found this in Nutildah's trust ratings today and found it rather interesting... usually this would be grounds for completely removing any credibility for an account and red tagging it to the center of the Earth, but as usual, some people around here are more equal than others...


Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

"Account for sale. Archived page if he deleted the thread.

https://archive.is/BBMFH "

You will be receiving a comment like this "In 2016 the account sales were allowed in this forum and then later it was discouraged" by the forum rules so no one is going to tag that account since it is created in 2016.

Anyone knows here since when account sales were considered as untrustworthy behaviour? Exact date will be appreciated.

Account sales have never been against forum rules. Over time the user base has deemed it to be unacceptable on their own. Any other time this happens not only is the soliciting account assumed to have been transferred, but it is red tagged by everyone and their mother to ensure it will not be abused.

[nutildah]

Funny how he posted this about 13 minutes after I said I was putting him on ignore...

Obviously I had a change of heart and have since changed my attitude 180 on account sales.

Back then, yes, it wasn't as big a deal, and I was pretty desperate for money. Times have changed, however, with ICOs and an influx of scams to previously unfathomable proportions. I recognize that and now would never sell my account. The crypto space has grown exponentially since then, with BTC going up in price almost tenfold in that time.

Also I wasn't as committed to the forum then as I am now. If somebody wants to tag me for a non-event from 3 years ago, I can't stop them.

Frankly I think tecshare takes things way too personally, which is what led him to comment in this thread in the first place. I've come to peace with the fact that he dislikes me... why he continues to troll me and seek to damage my reputation is beyond me.

[TECSHARE]

Funny how he posted this about 13 minutes after I said I was putting him on ignore...

Obviously I had a change of heart and have since changed my attitude 180 on account sales.

Back then, yes, it wasn't as big a deal, and I was pretty desperate for money. Times have changed, however, with ICOs and an influx of scams to previously unfathomable proportions. I recognize that and now would never sell my account. The crypto space has grown exponentially since then, with BTC going up in price almost tenfold in that time. (which is why I'll probably never be desperate for money again   )

Also I wasn't as committed to the forum then as I am now. If somebody wants to tag me for a non-event from 3 years ago, I can't stop them.

Frankly I think tecshare takes things way too personally, which is what led him to comment in this thread in the first place. I've come to peace with the fact that he dislikes me... why he continues to troll me and seek to damage my reputation is beyond me.

I think you have this backwards. You know what is interesting is you used to have me on your trust list, but for some "unknown" reason as I became more vocally critical of trust rating abuse you fell in line with all of the worst abusers, not only excluding me, but then becoming their toadie mouthpiece attacking me any time I brought it up.

Then later you decided to follow me to Politics & Society where you previously showed little to no activity to prove how much of a brown noser you really are to your masters. Then when you are unable to even engage in debate you call me insane, run away, and "ignore" me. Who knew that joining a mob and attacking people would bring extra scrutiny to you? Poor you.

The fact of the matter is that this is just yet another proof of the fact that there is a set of standards for the ass kiss brigade of which Nutilduuuh is a member, and a set of standards for everyone else. As far as I am concerned this account should be considered compromised as there is no way to know for sure it was not transferred. I really wouldn't be surprised if this account is simply a sock used by another more well known member attempting to maintain their desired narrative without risking their main account.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Then when you are unable to even engage in debate you call me insane, run away, and "ignore" me.

The fact of the matter is that this is just yet another proof of the fact that there is a set of standards for the ass kiss brigade of which Nutilduuuh is a member, and a set of standards for everyone else.

You said much the same thing about me, but the fact is that you're a online pest who won't stop arguing until the person you're arguing with gets bored and disengages--but you don't stop.  This is why people are calling you a troll.  You are also accusing nutildah of stalking, which is what you yourself are guilty of.  You wouldn't stop pestering me until I had to block your PMs, at which point you left a neutral trust on me that was, to put it mildly, aggressive in tone. 

Nutildah is probably just tired of arguing with you, and yet here you are digging up 'dirt' that you think is evidence of a double standard.  Tell the police that they missed every speeder on the highway and ask them why they don't give a ticket to every one.  That's the ridiculous basis of your argument.  I was tagging account sellers in 2016 (not many other members were), but apparently I didn't tag him.  Must have missed him, because 1) there's no tag, and 2) I don't remember.  It was 3 years ago.  I'd tell you to give it up, but those words would be wasted on you. 

[nutildah]

I can't see what you're saying but doesn't wanting to red paint somebody for this go against everything that you have been preaching on Meta for quite some time now? It seems extremely petty. I'm trying to actually help clean things up around here and you are trying to drive me out.. because you don't agree with my politics?

It will be interesting to see what transpired by the time I wake up in the morning, that's for sure.

Pharmacist I'm going to go ahead and merit your post because I agree with your assessment of tecshare 100%. Sorry to have my ilk contaminate your "brigade", hope you can forgive me for that.

[TECSHARE]

I can't see what you're saying but doesn't wanting to red paint somebody for this go against everything that you have been preaching on Meta for quite some time now? It seems extremely petty. I'm trying to actually help clean things up around here and you are trying to drive me out.. because you don't agree with my politics?

It will be interesting to see what transpired by the time I wake up in the morning, that's for sure.

Pharmacist I'm going to go ahead and merit your post because I agree with your assessment of tecshare 100%. Sorry to have my ilk contaminate your "brigade", hope you can forgive me for that.

You think this is because of your politics? Man if that was the case, this would be a full time job with all the people who disagree with my politics around here. No, this is about your own aggressive behavior toward me, and the resulting extra scrutiny. That is all.

Then when you are unable to even engage in debate you call me insane, run away, and "ignore" me.

The fact of the matter is that this is just yet another proof of the fact that there is a set of standards for the ass kiss brigade of which Nutilduuuh is a member, and a set of standards for everyone else.

You said much the same thing about me, but the fact is that you're a online pest who won't stop arguing until the person you're arguing with gets bored and disengages--but you don't stop.  This is why people are calling you a troll.  You are also accusing nutildah of stalking, which is what you yourself are guilty of.  You wouldn't stop pestering me until I had to block your PMs, at which point you left a neutral trust on me that was, to put it mildly, aggressive in tone.  

Nutildah is probably just tired of arguing with you, and yet here you are digging up 'dirt' that you think is evidence of a double standard.  Tell the police that they missed every speeder on the highway and ask them why they don't give a ticket to every one.  That's the ridiculous basis of your argument.  I was tagging account sellers in 2016 (not many other members were), but apparently I didn't tag him.  Must have missed him, because 1) there's no tag, and 2) I don't remember.  It was 3 years ago.  I'd tell you to give it up, but those words would be wasted on you.  

Here comes the rest of the gang. What did I say about you? Who is forcing anyone to engage with me at all? Ooo a neutral. MUCH ABUSE! I didn't accuse anyone of stalking. I simply pointed out the only reason I know Nutilduuh exists is because of their repeated hostilities toward me, otherwise I never would have even noticed this. I just find it rather sad they now attempt to play the victim after the repeated instigation of attacks upon me by Nutilduuh for having ideas they don't approve of.

The fact is this would be total justification for any of you in the trust police squad to demolish an account, but not when they are just so good at kissing your asses huh? If you were on the end handing out the ratings you would consider negative ratings totally justified, but now you are the one being scrutinized suddenly everyone needs to make exceptions. If it were not for double standards, you and all the other trust abuse toadies would have no standards at all.

[suchmoon]

As far as I am concerned this account should be considered compromised as there is no way to know for sure it was not transferred. I really wouldn't be surprised if this account is simply a sock used by another more well known member attempting to maintain their desired narrative without risking their main account.

Everyone who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. Case closed. Now that you don't have to sherlock around looking for dirt you'll have so much more time to implement your "standards". Thank me later.