TECSHARE is abusing the trust system

[Vod]

I figured I would start the topic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15728;page=trusted&dt

You should not be able to trade your way onto DT like this profile has done.
https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

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.   :/

[1715688359]

1715688359

[1715688359]

1715688359

[hacker1001101001]

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.

[TECSHARE]

I figured I would start the topic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15728;page=trusted&dt

You should not be able to trade your way onto DT like this profile has done.
https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

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.   :/

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. "

[Vod]

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...

[TECSHARE]

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?

[nutildah]

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.

[DireWolfM14]

TecSHARE has definitely been manipulating his trust-list for selfish purposes, but I reject the idea that he's a scammer.  I believe anyone who deals with TecSHARE need not worry about getting scammed.  He has proven himself to be an honest trader.

But again, his policy of trust-list reciprocity is an obvious attempt to manipulate the system. 

[marlboroza]

I agree with nutildah and DireWolfM14 and I want to add that negative is not appropriate. He is not scammer, he is trusted trader but his moral is questionable.

[Timelord2067]

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=5181603.0

Most 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.msg52379325

It would seem that Tecshare is making good on his thread by throwing his hat into the ring with these collaborators.

[LoyceV]

There should really be an open discussion as to whether or not this type of behavior is an acceptable practice for a DT1 member,

Agreed!

Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward.

I'd like to add to the open discussion the question whether or not there should be a technical limit to the number of DT1-votes any DT1-member gets. For example: Is it really desirable that a DT1-member without any support from other DT1-members gets to include or exclude many other DT1-members? Or should there be a limit on the "voting power" within DT1 (possibly depending on the number of DT1-inclusions the user has)?

I agree with nutildah and DireWolfM14 and I want to add that negative is not appropriate. He is not scammer, he is trusted trader but his moral is questionable.

Agreed. I think this quote from theymos applies here too:

All three of TMAN, Vod, and OgNasty are forum veterans with good trade histories, and I would tend to trust all three of them (to varying degrees).

(the rest of theymos' post is worth reading too)

[DireWolfM14]

I'd like to add to the open discussion the question whether or not there should be a technical limit to the number of DT1-votes any DT1-member gets. For example: Is it really desirable that a DT1-member without any support from other DT1-members gets to include or exclude many other DT1-members? Or should there be a limit on the "voting power" within DT1 (possibly depending on the number of DT1-inclusions the user has)?

I know you've suggested before that DT2 inclusion should require at least two DT1 votes, and I tend to agree with this strategy.  It would mitigate the TrustSelfScratching abuse that goes on and prevent many shady users from getting voted to DT2.  I would suggest to add the same restriction for DT1 inclusion as well.  Along with the merit-based votes, two DT1 inclusions would also be required to qualify for DT1.  The system would still be decentralized, but a little more restrictive.

[Blacknavy]

Tecshare objektifliği nedeniyle çok uzun süredir benim trust listemde olan, güvenilir ama diğerleri tarafından sistemin dışına itilmiş bir 2011 DT üyesidir. Bu şekilde objektif ve sağlıklı kararlar alabilen üyeleri desteklememiz gerektiğini düşünüyorum ki kendisi de yerel forumda güvendiği üyeleri destekliyor. Sistemi suistimal edenleri engellemenin bir yolu ise, sistemi suistimal etmeyenleri desteklemektir.

Theymos, Tecshare, OgNasty, LoyceV, DarkStar_ güvenilir ve objektif üyelerdir. DarkStar_ DT sistemini bize anlatan ve destekleyen ilk kişidir fakat kendi aramızda kapıştığımız için haklı olarak desteği çekti o ayrı konudur, bunun yanında LoyceV de kısmen objektif davranışlar sergiledi.

Yerelde; EFS, by rallier, bobita ve mhanbostanci güvenilirdir, başka güvenilir üyeler de vardır fakat ya EFS gibi Trust sistemine dahil olmak istemiyorlar ya da kendilerini buraya yazabilecek kadar tanımıyorum.

Globaldeki en güvenilmez üyeler ise; Foxpup ve Lauda’dır.

DT üyelerinin anlık değişimleri buradan takip edilebilir: https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

I recommended people in the Turkish local forum to add trusted members to their trust lists.

In my opinion,

Trusted members in global section are Theymos, Tecshare, OgNasty, LoyceV, DarkStar_ (and maybe more, but i don't know others for now)
Trusted members in Turkish section are EFS, by rallier, bobita and mhanbostanci (and maybe more)

We are trying to learn trust system and i tried to help people who want to learn this system. Therefore, some Turkish people added Tecshare and others in their trust list. Tecshare is objective, helpful and reliable like Theymos, OgNasty, LoyceV, DarkStar_. I'm trying to find trusted people in DT members. If we don't search, how Turkish people can learn Trust system? I will not send a post again.

[Timelord2067]

My understanding is that the more merits you have the stronger your DT votes are in groups of 250 merits.

[actmyname]

My understanding is that the more merits you have the stronger your DT votes are in groups of 250 merits.

They're all equal and follow a "who needs it most" sieve from what I recall. You are merely entitled to more 250-bin votes for DT elections.

[TECSHARE]

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=5181603.0

Most 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.msg52379325

It 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.

[Vispilio]

Case 1:
Spreading false rumors about ALL the DT members of an entire local section on a daily basis, and when they finally respond with excellent arguments, adding them ALL to your distrust list.

BTT DT mafia's response:
"Hey back off buddy, we are just exercising our freedom of speech, and my trust list is mine to do with as I please."


Case 2:
Engaging in intellectual debate with said Turkish users, and after numerous fruitful conversations, adding some of them to your positive Trust list.

BTT DT mafia's verdict:
"Worst abuse of the trust system, what a manipulative opportunist, burn him at the stake, exclude him immediately, the fortress of corruption must not fall ..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure most sane and reasonable members will not comment for fear of retaliation by the DT mafia, but something looks pretty fucked up to me in this picture ladies & gents,

I would be very interested to hear how some truly independent and courageous guys like theymos and OgNasty would assess this totally twisted situation.

Warm Regards

[suchmoon]

~

The problem is the reciprocal part of those relationships. Adding or removing someone with or without conversation is everyone's personal business. But when a quid pro quo (or retaliatory) pattern develops you can expect raised eyebrows.

Your exaggerations are not helping either, someone might see you as a conspiracy nutjob and consider it a flaw in your judgement.

[TECSHARE]

~

The problem is the reciprocal part of those relationships. Adding or removing someone with or without conversation is everyone's personal business. But when a quid pro quo (or retaliatory) pattern develops you can expect raised eyebrows.

Your exaggerations are not helping either, someone might see you as a conspiracy nutjob and consider it a flaw in your judgement.

[proposes a conspiracy, then criticizes opponent for making up conspiracy theories]

There was never any quid pro quo, or any pattern of it, this is just your projections upon the situation because it serves your goals of punishing me for working to unseat your clown cartel. This is 100% a matter of self preservation of your own authority, which not shored up with an iron nepotist hand, will collapse like a pile of sand when exposed to an actually decentralized DT where people are offered legitimate choices instead of just "with us" or "against us".

You want to talk about retaliatory patterns now? Why are the retaliatory patterns of exclusions enacted upon me that continually JUUST so happen to occur after I call one of you clowns out? Why is it none of you righteously object then? Your collective retaliation is sanctified though is it? How about your best bud Yahoo62278 for example, deleted multiple positive trust ratings for me after I was critical of him in this thread, which coincidentally is about another almost decade long pattern of retaliation. He shouldn't be abusing the trust system for retaliation, but of course not a peep from the circus. I guess they were on vacation that day. This is as it has been for a long time here, two sets of standards. One for you, and one for everyone else.

[Vispilio]

~

... exaggerations are not helping either, someone might see you as a conspiracy nutjob ...

[proposes a conspiracy, then criticizes opponent for making up conspiracy theories]

There was never any quid pro quo, or any pattern of it, this is just your projections upon the situation because it serves your goals of punishing me for working to unseat your clown cartel. This is 100% a matter of self preservation of your own authority, which not shored up with an iron nepotist hand, will collapse like a pile of sand when exposed to an actually decentralized DT where people are offered legitimate choices instead of just "with us" or "against us".

exactly, also there is no conspiracy, everything I've described above has already happened , another totally flat argument
by the primary merit source of the DT mafia...

[teeGUMES]

In the last two weeks we have seen the words racist and scammer used in very very poor fashion on the forum. These words have no meaning nowadays because of you people. Open a dictionary or google the proper terms you are looking for.
These are now used for clickbait to gather the uneducated pitchfork mobs. The world has gone to shit in this regard, don't let our forum follow.

[TECSHARE]

In the last two weeks we have seen the words racist and scammer used in very very poor fashion on the forum. These words have no meaning nowadays because of you people. Open a dictionary or google the proper terms you are looking for.
These are now used for clickbait to gather the uneducated pitchfork mobs. The world has gone to shit in this regard, don't let our forum follow.

The enthusiasm with which people engage in these mobs is terrifying, never once considering that inevitably they will be on the other end, because now that is just the accepted standard.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

He is not scammer, he is trusted trader but his moral is questionable.

I don't even think his moral(s) are questionable, at least from what he's demonstrated on this forum.  He's a hot-headed troll, yes, but he's not a scammer from what I've seen.  In fact I do recall writing quite a long time ago that I would do business with him if we hadn't butted heads and made such a relationship untenable.  I'm not sure what kind of argument Vod is trying to make here, but I'd certainly like some clarification on the "scammer" aspect of it.

Lobbying to get yourself on DT isn't sinister in and of itself, and we all knew TECSHARE wanted and thinks he deserves to be on it.  I kind of figured he'd end up back on the list eventually, along with OgNasty.

[TECSHARE]

He is not scammer, he is trusted trader but his moral is questionable.

I don't even think his moral(s) are questionable, at least from what he's demonstrated on this forum.  He's a hot-headed troll, yes, but he's not a scammer from what I've seen.  In fact I do recall writing quite a long time ago that I would do business with him if we hadn't butted heads and made such a relationship untenable.  I'm not sure what kind of argument Vod is trying to make here, but I'd certainly like some clarification on the "scammer" aspect of it.

Lobbying to get yourself on DT isn't sinister in and of itself, and we all knew TECSHARE wanted and thinks he deserves to be on it.  I kind of figured he'd end up back on the list eventually, along with OgNasty.

This is what the clown car is terrified of right here. People who don't necessarily like each other maintaining principals we are all held to, regardless of our personal feelings. After all, if we aren't too busy bickering, we might realize we agree on something. Something that might mean they are also held to those standards if too many people get "uppity" and start following actual principles instead of just a popularity contest.

[suchmoon]

exactly, also there is no conspiracy, everything I've described above has already happened , another totally flat argument

This didn't happen:

when they finally respond with excellent arguments, adding them ALL to your distrust list.

You created a bogus flag and got excluded for it. Not because of your non-existent "excellent arguments".

by the primary merit source of the DT mafia...

Thank you, I'm doing my best.

[Vod]

In the last two weeks we have seen the words racist and scammer used in very very poor fashion on the forum.

And all the lying, too.   Didn't you post several times you would be changing my negative trust to neutral?  You kept repeating that until things calmed down, then you did nothing.  :/

[Vispilio]

You created a bogus flag and got excluded for it. Not because of your non-existent "excellent arguments".

The arguments are very real, and you seem to love them , and ok good to know by your own admission, since that flag is long removed now,

I look forward to seeing you remove the exclusion this week.

[suchmoon]

The arguments are very real, and you seem to love them

None of the arguments (such as racism) presented are valid reasons for a flag.

and ok good to know by your own admission, since that flag is long removed now,

Do you still think it was ok to create the flag to begin with? And why did you withdraw your support for it?

[TECSHARE]

The arguments are very real, and you seem to love them

None of the arguments (such as racism) presented are valid reasons for a flag.

and ok good to know by your own admission, since that flag is long removed now,

Do you still think it was ok to create the flag to begin with? And why did you withdraw your support for it?

Could it be because he was targeted using the same methodology first? Nah. I am sure all these attacks on me that sprung up after convincing several of the Turkish members to withdraw support for it because it doesn't serve their goals are total coincidences as well. We cant have the out group acting respectable and earning the respect of too many users right? That could challenge your unilateral nepotistic control now couldn't it?

They have been under attack, but not because they are Turkish, but because they are not part of the special boy default trust circus club and their presence challenges your control.

[nutildah]

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.

I'm not the one going around adding new DT1 members from local boards one after another like you are. If you want to dig for flaws in my own trust system setup, feel free.

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.

Wrong. With the exception of Vispilio, they were all already on DT when you added them. Matthias added you in the week of 6/22, along with a dozen other DT1s. He didn't become DT1 until 8/2. You added him to your trust list 3 hours later.

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)

This guy was made DT1 in the week of 6/29. You added him on 7/23, and when he failed to reciprocate in a period of 5 days, you dumped him:

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

Kalemder was made DT1 on 9/4/2019 at 12:35:13 AM. You included him 16 hours later.

bobita was made DT1 on 8/2/2019. You included him 2 days later.

mhanbostanci was re-added to DT1 on 9/4. You included him 3 days later.

Regardless, is "wanting to see it more diverse" a good reason to add people to your trust list?

Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in.

Is this also a good reason to add people to your trust list?

[Vod]

I won't go so far as to say this makes him a "scammer," but its pretty dishonest behavior.

I have not used the word "scam" in my official complaint on his trust page.  To me, scammer can mean someone who operates in a dishonest or deceptive way.  But not everyone believes that, so I just stated what happened and let people come to their own conclusions.

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.

The community will decide overall.  If some stop trusting me because I called out a cheater, more people will cheat.  If not, it should be a warning to others wanting to trade trust that we will not tolerate it.

[teeGUMES]

In the last two weeks we have seen the words racist and scammer used in very very poor fashion on the forum.

And all the lying, too.   Didn't you post several times you would be changing my negative trust to neutral?  You kept repeating that until things calmed down, then you did nothing.  :/

You're right. You continued to be a piece of shit in general so I decided it would stick. Who runs my trust/feedback lists? Certainly not you. Begging me in PM the moment I turned net positive in DT1 again was icing on the cake.

[Vod]

Begging me in PM the moment I turned net positive in DT1 again was icing on the cake.

Six days ago?  

I had decided to give you another chance after all the promises you made, but you've been an obvious OG copy cat since day one.  Now you are posting misleading statements like the one above, just like he does.  

Considering the amicable history we've had in PM, your ignoring my PM and then lying about when it was sent is very childish - same thing you accuse me of being.

Edit:  Since you've lied about the contents and time of a PM I sent you, I've blocked your PMs.   Keep everything public from now on.

[teeGUMES]

Begging me in PM the moment I turned net positive in DT1 again was icing on the cake.

Six days ago?  

I had decided to give you another chance after all the promises you made, but you've been an obvious OG copy cat since day one.  Now you are posting misleading statements like the one above, just like he does. 

Considering the amicable history we've had in PM, your ignoring my PM and then lying about when it was sent is very childish - same thing you accuse me of being.

Try not to put words in my mouth. I said you were a piece of shit.. not childish.
This also seems like you are trying to bait me into releasing private messages so you can use that against me. I believe I turned net positive this month and I received your PM begging me to remove my negative this month. Good enough timeline for me and my statement.

You're not worth my time replying to anymore and any communication from yourself to me Vod can be considered unsolicited.

[Vod]

Try not to put words in my mouth. I said you were a piece of shit.. not childish.

Liar.  

Publicly doxxed a member of the bitcointalk community. Backtracked once he slept on it and realized it was a bad idea. Impulse doxxing over a petty dispute is childish.

I believe I turned net positive this month and I received your PM begging me to remove my negative this month. Good enough timeline for me and my statement.

I never even asked for you to remove the negative, much less beg, liar.

[teeGUMES]

Try not to put words in my mouth. I said you were a piece of shit.. not childish.

Liar.  

Publicly doxxed a member of the bitcointalk community. Backtracked once he slept on it and realized it was a bad idea. Impulse doxxing over a petty dispute is childish.

I believe I turned net positive this month and I received your PM begging me to remove my negative this month. Good enough timeline for me and my statement.

I never even asked for you to remove the negative, much less beg, liar.

1.5minutes in between my reply and his post. Preplanned attack. Get your drama kick off someone else.

[Vod]

1.5minutes in between my reply and his post. Preplanned attack. Get your drama kick off someone else.

My drama kick was sending you a PM telling you OG was making a good attempt to ignore me and I didn't want to stir up drama?  You are the drama queen lol.

Ok, back to topic.  

[TECSHARE]

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.

I'm not the one going around adding new DT1 members from local boards one after another like you are. If you want to dig for flaws in my own trust system setup, feel free.

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.

Wrong. With the exception of Vispilio, they were all already on DT when you added them. Matthias added you in the week of 6/22, along with a dozen other DT1s. He didn't become DT1 until 8/2. You added him to your trust list 3 hours later.

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)

This guy was made DT1 in the week of 6/29. You added him on 7/23, and when he failed to reciprocate in a period of 5 days, you dumped him:

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

Kalemder was made DT1 on 9/4/2019 at 12:35:13 AM. You included him 16 hours later.

bobita was made DT1 on 8/2/2019. You included him 2 days later.

mhanbostanci was re-added to DT1 on 9/4. You included him 3 days later.

Regardless, is "wanting to see it more diverse" a good reason to add people to your trust list?

Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in.

Is this also a good reason to add people to your trust list?

I know you are trying desperately to rekindle this narrative and attempt upon my character, but it has already been addressed and failed. Now the simple fact that I add people to my trust list is grounds for suspicion? How desperate are you clowns, really? YOU are the primary flaw in your trust system setup, as far as anyone knows your account is bought and you have no way to prove otherwise. Yet here you are playing Rachel Maddow crafing your very own little Russian Turkish collusion narrative to draw attention away from you and yours in an exceptionally pathetic attempt to silence me and prevent me from having any say in this system, because it means your pals don't get to play Bitdictators anymore.

Regarding your accusation... They were on the default trust, as "0", so effectively for many purposes they were only on it after I added them. The others who were already on it I added because they were trusted by other Turkish individuals I have had contact with and felt were trustworthy. Regarding by rallier, it is rather convenient how you cropped that log...

"7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM    TECSHARE (-1) no longer trusts by rallier (2)
7/27/2019 6:43:30 PM    taikuri13 (11) trusts witcher_sense (9)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM    by rallier (2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM    by rallier (2) changed from distrusting to trusting owlcatz (25)"

I didn't like some of his recent trust list changes so I removed him.

Yes wanting to see the trust list be more diverse is a good reason to add people, because the current clown cartel is nepotistic, abusive, arbitrary, and destructive to the overall community. That behavior ends when power is distributed enough that they can't run roughshod over anyone who dares speak a word against them, much like the entire purpose of these coordinated attacks against myself the moment this interaction with the Turks changed the trust list status quo.

There are plenty of people on my trust list that don't add me reciprocally, even people I don't particularly like. This whole fantasy you have imagineered to project upon me is just the latest sadly transparent attempt to "get me" and I find it hard not laugh at how increasingly desperate and dumb you all look doing it.

 

[Vod]

"7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM    TECSHARE (-1) no longer trusts by rallier (2)
7/27/2019 6:43:30 PM    taikuri13 (11) trusts witcher_sense (9)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM    by rallier (2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM    by rallier (2) changed from distrusting to trusting owlcatz (25)"

I didn't like some of his recent trust list changes so I removed him.

His most recent change was by rallier no longer distrusts Last of the V8s

but look!

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   TECSHARE no longer distrusts Last of the V8s
(Part of the change over cycle)

[TECSHARE]

"7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM    TECSHARE (-1) no longer trusts by rallier (2)
7/27/2019 6:43:30 PM    taikuri13 (11) trusts witcher_sense (9)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM    by rallier (2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM    by rallier (2) changed from distrusting to trusting owlcatz (25)"

I didn't like some of his recent trust list changes so I removed him.

His most recent change was by rallier no longer distrusts Last of the V8s

but look!

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   TECSHARE no longer distrusts Last of the V8s

Just another lie from the scammer TECSHARE.  :/

You mean the trust list change over cycle?

"8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    TMAN (24) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    mindrust (1) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    nutildah (11) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    micgoossens (4) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    kenzawak (-7) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    DireWolfM14 (7) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    TECSHARE (-1) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    OgNasty (4) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    Rmcdermott927 (-2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM    ekiller (-2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)"

I guess they are all part of the conspiracy. Come on Vod, this is pathetic, even for you.

[hacker1001101001]

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. "

This feedback left by VOD is total mess here, I don't know how he thinks this would help newbies to stay safe, as TECSHARE is not an harm to newbies here rather much helpful as it's seen. He has not even traded positive trust, and has reached DT due is own ways of dealing around with the issue's here.

One can use trust list to handle such issue, really all this conspires as made up drama to hit TECSHARE, and get him off DT with whatever childish made up accusation you can.

I didn't like some of his recent trust list changes so I removed him.

His most recent change was by rallier no longer distrusts Last of the V8s

Look, perfect example of twisting the situation as per your agenda, its clearly stated by TECSHARE that he did this because he didn't like some of the changes in rallier's trust list.

He said some changes and accuser's still starts cherry picking, to fit some agendas. This reflects really bad on you dude !

[nutildah]

Regarding your accusation... They were on the default trust, as "0", so effectively for many purposes they were only on it after I added them. The others who were already on it I added because they were trusted by other Turkish individuals I have had contact with and felt were trustworthy.

Even if someone gets added to DT1 at net zero, they are still being added to DT1. They have the ability to vote for other DT1, which is what you like most about them. And even if what you are saying is true, is that still a good reason to add someone to your trust list? Do you speak Turkish, or Russian for that matter?

No matter how you spin your actions, its pretty obvious what your endgame is. You had to know you were going to get caught at some point. Should have come up with a better backstory during that time.

Yes wanting to see the trust list be more diverse is a good reason to add people, because the current clown cartel is nepotistic, abusive, arbitrary, and destructive to the overall community.

"More diverse" is not a good reason. I didn't know you were such a fan of affirmative action. You really only think they're a benefit if they include you in their trust list, or benefit you personally in some way. If they don't, you could care less about them.

[TECSHARE]

Regarding your accusation... They were on the default trust, as "0", so effectively for many purposes they were only on it after I added them. The others who were already on it I added because they were trusted by other Turkish individuals I have had contact with and felt were trustworthy.

Even if someone gets added to DT1 at net zero, they are still being added to DT1. They have the ability to vote for other DT1, which is what you like most about them. And even if what you are saying is true, is that still a good reason to add someone to your trust list? Do you speak Turkish, or Russian for that matter?

No matter how you spin your actions, its pretty obvious what your endgame is. You had to know you were going to get caught at some point. Should have come up with a better backstory during that time.

Yes wanting to see the trust list be more diverse is a good reason to add people, because the current clown cartel is nepotistic, abusive, arbitrary, and destructive to the overall community.

"More diverse" is not a good reason. I didn't know you were such a fan of affirmative action. You really only think they're a benefit if they include you in their trust list, or benefit you personally in some way. If they don't, you could care less about them.

Why aren't you working for Mrs. Cleo since you clearly think you have the ability to read minds? That is why I added them to my inclusions, you are free to invent your own baseless interpretations of why you think I did it all you like, that doesn't make them make any sense.

I wasn't aware I had to speak the language of every user I add, I figured the fact that they spoke to me in English was good enough, but I guess not for you. There is no spin, I have been absolutely transparent in my activities and countering your sad little inquisition is about as hard as fighting my way out of a wet paper bag. Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

Next you will be telling me about how my breathing patterns are actually secret codes I am sending to the Turks so we can take control of Bitcointalk, and the fact that I am still breathing is suspect. Do you ever just look at yourself and think, "Man I really am a pathetic human being with no life." ? Because you really should. It could be a growth experience for you. According to you and the other clown car inhabitants, every shit I take is suspicious and worthy of an in depth breakdown. Feel free to dig through my excrement looking for illicit peanuts if you like, just don't blame me when you get all covered in shit.

[nutildah]

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

[TECSHARE]

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

I think it is a great reason. Why shouldn't I add people who are being targeted by abusive nepotists hellbent on preventing anyone else from having any influence in "their" trust system to counter that abuse? Oh right, because your friends are the abusers. Clearly that is unacceptable then, because you don't approve of the results. Anything else turdburgler, or are you all tuckered out and ready for a shower?

[hacker1001101001]

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

Again, you too don't have any great reasons to exclude someone in your trust list.

Example: ME.

[TECSHARE]

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

Again, you too don't have any great reasons to exclude someone in your trust list.

Example: ME.

You have been judged guilty of not agreeing with everything him and his friends say.

[Timelord2067]

...

Oh WOW! Muchly argument solved with a Gif!

*Case Closed*

[hacker1001101001]

You have been judged guilty of not agreeing with everything him and his friends say.

nutildah: Doesn't it sound like hacker1001101001 is trying to get into TECSHARE's trust list.

Because TECSHARE said this:

Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.

 I am going to bang you for trust list abuse !  LOL.

[TECSHARE]

...

Oh WOW! Muchly argument solved with a Gif!

*Case Closed*

The argument was already made cupcake. This is just me entertaining myself because watching the clown car pick peanuts out of my droppings is getting boring.


As you can see here, clearly Nutilduhh is trying to get me to add them to their trust list, but when I did not reciprocate, he removed me...

9/10/2019 6:44:15 AM    nutildah (11) distrusts TECSHARE (-1)
9/10/2019 6:34:11 AM    nutildah (11) no longer distrusts TECSHARE (-1)

What say ye Nutilduhh? Apparently this standard of evidence is enough for you.

[TheNewAnon135246]

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.

It's a pretty big accomplishment to be able to turn the current trust system into an ever bigger joke. Well done TECCY!

[Hhampuz]

To jump in tecshares defense here, I've had him on my trustlist for about 10 weeks now and I'm yet to be added to his.

[suchmoon]

To jump in tecshares defense here, I've had him on my trustlist for about 10 weeks now and I'm yet to be added to his.

Sorry, you're not in DT1 so you don't qualify for backscratching.

[LoyceV]

Sorry, you're not in DT1 so you don't qualify for backscratching.

Hhampuz was on DT1 when he included TECSHARE.

TECSHARE included me 3 weeks ago. I haven't included anyone else for as long as I keep data, so I'd like to think it's because he values my feedback (and that's how it should be).

[suchmoon]

Sorry, you're not in DT1 so you don't qualify for backscratching.

Hhampuz was on DT1 when he included TECSHARE.

You're right. They had mutual inclusions before though, up to the falling out in week 18:

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html

I haven't included anyone else for as long as I keep data

You included me in week 2 so I'm sure there is some conspiracy somewhere.

[TECSHARE]

I wonder what "inconsistencies" and suspicions I could generate with a whole team of clowns digging through all of your trust lists? Of course these kind of unrealistic standards of constant suspicion couldn't possibly be applied to any one of you now could it? You all don't reciprocally add each other now do you? I wonder what kind of correlations might be made between everyone posting accusations against me here and their own trust lists. Hmmmmmmm.

[TheNewAnon135246]

I wonder what "inconsistencies" and suspicions I could generate with a whole team of clowns digging through all of your trust lists? Of course these kind of unrealistic standards of constant suspicion couldn't possibly be applied to any one of you now could it? You all don't reciprocally add each other now do you? I wonder what kind of correlations might be made between everyone posting accusations against me here and their own trust lists. Hmmmmmmm.

Start digging and let us know!

[LoyceV]

You're right. They had mutual inclusions before though, up to the falling out in week 18:

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html

The plot thickens: in week 8 (counting by my Trust list viewer's weeks), TECSHARE stopped excluding Hhampuz and in the same week started including him. At the same week, Hhampuz stopped excluding TECSHARE and a week later Hhampuz included TECSHARE.

Disclaimer: I'm just spitting out data, I have no idea what conspiracy to tie to this data.

I haven't included anyone else for as long as I keep data

You included me in week 2 so I'm sure there is some conspiracy somewhere.

My bad, you're right. I removed the underscores from links in week 2, and didn't realize my list didn't have 18 names yet in week 1.

[Hhampuz]

You're right. They had mutual inclusions before though, up to the falling out in week 18:

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html

The plot thickens: in week 8 (counting by my Trust list viewer's weeks), TECSHARE stopped excluding Hhampuz and in the same week started including him. At the same week, Hhampuz stopped excluding TECSHARE and a week later Hhampuz included TECSHARE.

Disclaimer: I'm just spitting out data, I have no idea what conspiracy to tie to this data.

This would be when we "buried the hatchet" and had a few good pm's back and forth. Also around the time I decided not to trust/distrust someone based on their opinion, for better or worse.

[actmyname]

Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)

[TECSHARE]

I wonder what "inconsistencies" and suspicions I could generate with a whole team of clowns digging through all of your trust lists? Of course these kind of unrealistic standards of constant suspicion couldn't possibly be applied to any one of you now could it? You all don't reciprocally add each other now do you? I wonder what kind of correlations might be made between everyone posting accusations against me here and their own trust lists. Hmmmmmmm.

Start digging and let us know!

No thanks, I will leave the peanut hunt up to you guys. I am just making the point that this level of scrutiny could be applied to literally anyone to try to cast aspersions.

Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)

Right. For that matter, if some one sees a problem with my list, the logical thing would be to notify me of it. That is unless of course the intent was to use it to defame me rather than correct the supposed issue, in that case a circus is in order.

[eddie13]

You guys think TS is conspiring with others about the trust system more than the DT1 who have been on since the start?
I think not..

[Vod]

Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.

Done. 

[xtraelv]

I don't believe that Tecshare is a scammer.

Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.

He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.

But I think his opinions are genuinely held.

I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.

It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".

I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.

So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).

DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.

[TECSHARE]

I don't believe that Tecshare is a scammer.

Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.

He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.

But I think his opinions are genuinely held.

I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.

It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".

I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.

So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).

DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.

Thanks for the support. I just want to correct one thing though. I never gave Vod a retaliatory trust rating, ever. He has given me negative ratings several times over the years for criticizing his behavior, but the community forced him to remove it, and I have never once responded in kind. Then earlier this year when he doxed and reported OGNasty to the IRS, I finally negative rated him for that. Of course a short time later here he is retaliating.

[nutildah]

I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.

I'm of the firm opinion that he gets inclusions as a thanks for including others. There's simply no good reason for him to add 7 local board DT1 members whom he had no prior history with or knowledge of until they joined DT1.

It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".

Perhaps. Still not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

[xolxol]

Vod please stop fooling yourself,its getting more and more ridiculous you are just being pathetic,trying hard to counter the problems you've made,tecshare deserves his position not like you !
Lauda's gang will soon be forgotten,and you idiot will become clown in this forum.

[Vod]

Thanks for the support. I just want to correct one thing though. I never gave Vod a retaliatory trust rating, ever. He has given me negative ratings several times over the years for criticizing his behavior, but the community forced him to remove it, and I have never once responded in kind. Then earlier this year when he doxed and reported OGNasty to the IRS, I finally negative rated him for that. Of course a short time later here he is retaliating.

Let me clear things up for everyone.   At no time has the community forced me to remove anything.  I have given techy many chances over the years, but I can't tolerate trust abuse coordinated to ruin my reputation.  One day I may remove it yet again in yet another interest of peace, but right now he needs to know his abuse is noticed and unwanted.

[TECSHARE]

Thanks for the support. I just want to correct one thing though. I never gave Vod a retaliatory trust rating, ever. He has given me negative ratings several times over the years for criticizing his behavior, but the community forced him to remove it, and I have never once responded in kind. Then earlier this year when he doxed and reported OGNasty to the IRS, I finally negative rated him for that. Of course a short time later here he is retaliating.

Let me clear things up for everyone.   At no time has the community forced me to remove anything.  I have given techy many chances over the years, but I can't tolerate trust abuse coordinated to ruin my reputation.  One day I may remove it yet again in yet another interest of peace, but right now he needs to know his abuse is noticed and unwanted.

I used the trust system against you once, that was for you doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS, and Theymos himself excluded you over it and said that was a valid case for a negative rating. You on the other hand, have left me completely undocumented and fabricated negative ratings repeatedly over the past 6 years, and in order to save face, yes you were forced to remove them. So is your argument now I coordinated with myself to have you repeatedly abuse the trust system against me over 6 years? You didn't "give me any chances", you have been stalking me and demonstrably lying about me to justify your repeated abuse of the trust system ratings over half a decade because I dared publicly criticize your behavior. In the interest of peace... lol please Vod, I can only piss myself laughing so much at your presentation of false moderation and reason. Everyone knows you boil bunnies under a shrine with my profile pic in it every night before bed.

At this point I don't even blame you, I blame this community for continuing to prop you up and enabling your long history of unstable and abusive behavior against anyone who criticizes you. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes me not at all feel bad about poking fun at these circus acts, because this community is too busy hiding in a corner unwilling to take a difficult stand to fix the problem, but they are perfectly willing to bitch about the symptoms of not doing so perpetually and pin the fault on their favorite scapegoats coincidentally designated by the perpetrators.

It costs the community as individuals nothing to leave these abusers in a position of authority, and it costs me nothing to piss in the eyes of these clowns so much they throw entire festivals to try to slander me. In summary, none of this drama bothers me, but I would much rather be doing my own thing instead of dealing with the sad party magician and his clown friends. Unfortunately I don't have a choice in the matter until the community stops pretending these people are in any way respectable and should be in any position of authority over anyone, and starts collectively taking responsibility for everyone they have been turning a blind eye to. Until that happens this place is always going to be 4Chan with an extensive research library, no matter what I do.

Enjoy your desperate attempts to create even more confusion to cover up for your own behavior Vod.

[Vod]

I used the trust system against you once, that was for you doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS, and Theymos himself excluded you over it and said that was a valid case for a negative rating.

Oh, you'll include Theymos in your coordinated attacks against me now?  Is that why he has excluded you "for the first time" for over five years?   You read his mind like you do mine?   No wonder you are obsessed with clowns and circus acts...  Ah techy, your stupidity amuses me,and time you spend making up these theories is flattering.

[TECSHARE]

I used the trust system against you once, that was for you doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS, and Theymos himself excluded you over it and said that was a valid case for a negative rating.

Oh, you'll include Theymos in your coordinated attacks against me now?  Is that why he has excluded you "for the first time" for over five years?   You read his mind like you do mine?   No wonder you are obsessed with clowns and circus acts...  Ah techy, your stupidity amuses me,and time you spend making up these theories is flattering.

You never did tell me who I am coordinating with, myself? Theymos?

It is a documented fact regardless of what you want to characterize it as. Also, Theymos is currently only excluding one of us right now, so the fact he excluded me in the past is irrelevant.

[Vod]

You never did tell me who I am coordinating with, myself? Theymos?

lol - you never did ask.

There's no way to have a conversation with you, is there?  Your goal is simply to disrupt business here.

I'm a simple moral person who does not like coordinated trust abuse or confirmed, documented liars.  

Vod complaining about abuse of the trust system is hilarious. The guy is a serial liar and documented abuser of the trust and merit systems. He’s basically as big of a piece of shit as one can possibly be on this forum.

So exposing scammers like you makes me worse than you are?  Try again, bozo.

[TECSHARE]

You never did tell me who I am coordinating with, myself? Theymos?

lol - you never did ask.

There's no way to have a conversation with you, is there?  Your goal is simply to disrupt business here.

I'm a simple moral person who does not like coordinated trust abuse or confirmed, documented liars.  

Vod complaining about abuse of the trust system is hilarious. The guy is a serial liar and documented abuser of the trust and merit systems. He’s basically as big of a piece of shit as one can possibly be on this forum.

So exposing scammers like you makes me worse than you are?  Try again, bozo.

You literally just quoted me asking...

Of course this is just you mirroring my words in a sad attempt to make this seem as if this is a mutual thing rather than a years long harassment campaign on your part. Funny how you can never provide documentation for these "lies". You are right about one thing though, you are simple. Moral, not in the least.

[Vod]

You literally just quoted me asking...

Of course this is just you mirroring my words in a sad attempt to make this seem as if this is a mutual thing rather than a years long harassment campaign on your part. Funny how you can never provide documentation for these "lies". You are right about one thing though, you are simple. Moral, not in the least.

Of course you don't find me moral - you have a different definition. 

You just posted the past is irrelevant.  lol  You are the one abusing the trust now, and the community agrees with my feedback.

Your double talk and contradictions must make you go to bed feeling superior to everyone else.

[OgNasty]

Your double talk and contradictions must make you go to bed feeling superior to everyone else.

Your word being worthless and your lack of testicles in an empty shriveled nut sack makes you an inferior bitch.

[Vod]

Your word being worthless and your lack of testicles in an empty shriveled nut sack makes you an inferior bitch.

Your word being worthless and your lack of testicles in an empty shriveled nut sack make me not care what you think. 

[TECSHARE]

Just wanted to post here so that people looking to target me can't use it as a "gotcha" moment later as if I don't know my trust inclusions are public and they have exposed some crime I was trying to keep secret. I have removed Kalemder and Vispilio from my inclusions over their support of this flag. I am disappointed after themselves being targeted by these kind of arbitrary flags that they turn right around and do it to others. I am open to changing this later if I see a change in behavior.

[nutildah]

I am open to changing this later if I see a change in behavior.

Yeah, mainly if Kalemder re-adds you (he dropped you on 9/19, surprised it took you so long to reciprocate) and Vispilio gets added to DT1 

Those seem to be your basic behavioral criteria.

[TECSHARE]

I am open to changing this later if I see a change in behavior.

Yeah, mainly if Kalemder re-adds you (he dropped you on 9/19, surprised it took you so long to reciprocate) and Vispilio gets added to DT1 

Those seem to be your basic behavioral criteria.

So if I add some one when they are on DT it is only because I want a reciprocal add. If I add some one who isn't on DT and later remove them it was because I plan to add them again later if they get on DT. Me participating in ANY WAY in the trust system is grounds for suspicion according to you and the other clown cartel members regardless of how transparent I am about it or how I justify it. None of the people accusing me of manipulation would themselves pass these levels of scrutiny of their own trust lists full of reciprocal adds and retaliatory exclusions, but of course they are above reproach and don't have to explain themselves as winners of the popularity contest. Everyone knows being popular means you are trustworthy of course.

[Vispilio]

Just wanted to post here so that people looking to target me can't use it as a "gotcha" moment later as if I don't know my trust inclusions are public and they have exposed some crime I was trying to keep secret. I have removed Kalemder and Vispilio from my inclusions over their support of this flag. I am disappointed after themselves being targeted by these kind of arbitrary flags that they turn right around and do it to others. I am open to changing this later if I see a change in behavior.

Tecshare what are you doing man, there are hundreds of posts demonstrating the total unreliability of Cryptosparks' business model, it's probably now become the most discussed flag on the forum:

Check here, here and here:

From your general tone I understand you are completely outside the realm of financial services, and yet you seem hell bent on protecting someone whose business propositions have been debunked very convincingly by many members just because you can never seem to palate the possibility that you may be mistaken on any issue whatsoever...

And just like our old buddy Cryptosparks here, you seem to lash out with ad hominems whenever people disagree with you...

My advice to you, the trust system might not be for you because you take every debate regarding it way too personally, relax and move on.

It would do wonders for your psychology if you understand that being wrong every once in a while does not compromise your honor and dignity, it's just part of being human. Good luck.

[TECSHARE]

Just wanted to post here so that people looking to target me can't use it as a "gotcha" moment later as if I don't know my trust inclusions are public and they have exposed some crime I was trying to keep secret. I have removed Kalemder and Vispilio from my inclusions over their support of this flag. I am disappointed after themselves being targeted by these kind of arbitrary flags that they turn right around and do it to others. I am open to changing this later if I see a change in behavior.

Tecshare what are you doing man, there are hundreds of posts demonstrating the total unreliability of Cryptosparks' business model, it's probably now become the most discussed flag on the forum:

Check here, here and here:

From your general tone I understand you are completely outside the realm of financial services, and yet you seem hell bent on protecting someone whose business propositions have been debunked very convincingly by many members just because you can never seem to palate the possibility that you may be mistaken on any issue whatsoever...

And just like our old buddy Cryptosparks here, you seem to lash out with ad hominems whenever people disagree with you...

My advice to you, the trust system might not be for you because you take every debate regarding it way too personally, relax and move on.

It would do wonders for your psychology if you understand that being wrong every once in a while does not compromise your honor and dignity, it's just part of being human. Good luck.

The standard for flags is not some arbitrary subjective determination of "unreliability". I have seen no one present any evidence Cryptosparks is up to anything illicit whatsoever beyond mere suspicion. Just because most people think something doesn't make them correct, and as some one with a financial background I would figure that is critical life experience to have any success in that field. Bitcoin itself was nothing more than a joke to the world for the longest time, and the ones who looked at the facts instead of just its popularity benefited greatly.

Your understanding is incorrect. Not only do I have extensive experience with trading, I know people who make a living explicitly doing what Cryptosparks does, and his claims are not at all unrealistic. Furthermore I have been in every role relating to cryptocurrency managing a project that at one point had a market cap of over $10 million dollars and was the highest returning asset of ANY CLASS globally as far as percent gains for the year of 2014 under my management. So excuse me when I say I probably have more knowledge in this arena than you do.

I don't know Cryptosparks, he is not my buddy, and I have had zero contact with him before this flag issue. You will notice I am not using ad hominems when I am talking to you, but are reserving them for others who have a long history of attempting to "get me" at any opportunity in retaliation for various perceived slights. You really have zero awareness of the relational dynamics of this situation, so please shelve the sanctimonious judgment over my language. I am presenting solid logic based arguments regardless of my inclusion of ad hominems from time to time directed towards people who have more than earned the honor with their own duplicity and slander. Why shouldn't people being judged unfairly tell the people delivering judgements upon them to go fuck themselves? Is that not the beauty of the freedom of working for yourself? Being nice and doing what is popular and upsets the least amount of people is not synonymous with being trustworthy.

I was hoping as some one who has been on the receiving end of these arbitrary accusations you would understand the flaw in judging people based on popular consensus instead of factually observable objective information, but it appears I was wrong, hence my removal of you from my inclusions. From where I sit it seems to me that you and others now feel like you have been accepted into the fold and are just abandoning any principles of fairness and seeking to ingratiate yourself with your former abusers hoping to be included into the default trust cartel. I haven't yet come to a final conclusion as to your own character, but I am not going to support you while you run around perpetrating these arbitrary mob inquisitions on the user base by supporting these arbitrary types of flags in the hopes you get to join the popular kids club.

[teeGUMES]

^ in reply to this, didn't we often use "caveat emptor" on a lot of the boards where sales and trading took place? At a quick glance I couldn't locate the phrase.

It seems like the mentality with the new flags is that people are putting all blame and focusing on DT1 creating nonsense flags at the first sign of anything out of the regular. The buyers need to also be responsible. As I have seen mentioned before.. a person that's bad with money and not doing their own research is going to lose their money whether it is now or later..

[Vispilio]

... Not only do I have extensive experience with trading, I know people who make a living explicitly doing what Cryptosparks does, and his claims are not at all unrealistic. Furthermore I have been in every role relating to cryptocurrency managing a project that at one point had a market cap of over $10 million dollars and was the highest returning asset of ANY CLASS globally as far as percent gains for the year of 2014 under my management. So excuse me when I say I probably have more knowledge in this arena than you do.
...

You can do a quick google search on me, find my identity and go to any reputable hedge fund in Zurich, Frankfurt or London today,
and they will be happy to tell you about me and my trading record, but ok let's not digress so much here...

Cryptosparks is a smart guy and I like some of his witty comebacks; however with regards to his capital management offers he is at best an overeager total rookie unaware of his fiduciary responsibilities as a prospective asset manager, and at worst is deliberately feigning ignorance and misrepresenting many of the risks inherent in his proposition to sign up as many people as possible because it's a free call option for him with 0 downside...

If you disagree with such an assessment, that's fine, why don't you then meet his minimum requirement and make a 100 USD Bitmex account, and publish the track record here for the next 3 months (after all it's not so bad to make 20% / month ). I believe your statement that you are not affiliated with him in any way, and if you average even half of the roughly 20% / month performance he is claiming for the next 3 months, you will have made a phenomenal statement against your detractors, I'll also withdraw the neg feedback on him, and finally something substantial can come out of these incessant DT dramas...

[TECSHARE]

... Not only do I have extensive experience with trading, I know people who make a living explicitly doing what Cryptosparks does, and his claims are not at all unrealistic. Furthermore I have been in every role relating to cryptocurrency managing a project that at one point had a market cap of over $10 million dollars and was the highest returning asset of ANY CLASS globally as far as percent gains for the year of 2014 under my management. So excuse me when I say I probably have more knowledge in this arena than you do.
...

You can do a quick google search on me, find my identity and go to any reputable hedge fund in Zurich, Frankfurt or London today,
and they will be happy to tell you about me and my trading record, but ok let's not digress so much here...

Cryptosparks is a smart guy and I like some of his witty comebacks; however with regards to his capital management offers he is at best an overeager total rookie unaware of his fiduciary responsibilities as a prospective asset manager, and at worst is deliberately feigning ignorance and misrepresenting many of the risks inherent in his proposition to sign up as many people as possible because it's a free call option for him with 0 downside...

If you disagree with such an assessment, that's fine, why don't you then meet his minimum requirement and make a 100 USD Bitmex account, and publish the track record here for the next 3 months (after all it's not so bad to make 20% / month ). I believe your statement that you are not affiliated with him in any way, and if you average even half of the roughly 20% / month performance he is claiming for the next 3 months, you will have made a phenomenal statement against your detractors, I'll also withdraw the neg feedback on him, and finally something substantial can come out of these incessant DT dramas...

Very proud of you. I am sure that makes you an expert on cryptocurrency trading and trading bots. This is all besides the point, the point being you assumed I have no knowledge of what I am referring to and you were mistaken. You and your new friends are doing a great job of stripping away all the freedoms people come here to enjoy so you can turn crypto into exactly what it was designed to escape from.

If you will notice you didn't actually even address my argument that this flag is arbitrary and subjective and rather instead again started arguing about how you think your assessment is correct. I don't know Cryptosparks let alone even support him. What I do know is that this system of arbitrary accusation and inquisition is not only an abuse of the trust system but is extremely destructive to this community. Complain some more about drama as you create more of it with your trust system abuse and your new friends.

You deleting the positive trust rating you left for me is a nice touch as well. Way to prove you don't abuse the trust system by only leaving ratings when it serves you and deleting ratings at the slightest criticism. Go for the gold.

EDIT: I may be remembering a rating from Kalemder

[Vod]

Bump... trust system abuse continuing

TECHSHARE is still pretending he can read minds and predict the future.  Clear sign of mental illness and, as Theymos says, he has no place on DT.

[OgNasty]

as Theymos says, he has no place on DT.

Aren’t you the one theymos has excluded from his trust network and marked as distrusted? (Spoiler alert: yes)

[Vod]

as Theymos says, he has no place on DT.

Aren’t you the one theymos has excluded from his trust network and marked as distrusted? (Spoiler alert: yes)

Aren't you the one that scammed over 2,000 bitcoin from this community?  (Spoiler alert:  yes)

Yeah, that compares with someone not trusting me. (sarcasm).

Pay back the community Thief.