TECSHARE is abusing the trust system

[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.

[1715182161]

1715182161

[1715182161]

1715182161

[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.