More trust abuse by marlboroza

[nutildah]

How do I get on this list?  

For some reason TS grabbed a relatively ancient version of marlboroza's included by list and used it as the basis for his new list. So I don't know, its a mystery.

I can't believe I never had marlboroza in my trust list. I must have misspelled his name when I originally set up my list a long time ago. What an embarrassing oversight.

[1714808032]

1714808032

[1714808032]

1714808032

[1714808032]

1714808032

[1714808032]

1714808032

[hacker1001101001]

Marlboroza should not be in any sane person's trust list who knows what type of abuse they support and even do as noted in this thread itself. Anyone trusting them is supporting groupism and mobbing here overall and is against neutral and unbiased judgement.

Get me out of DT1 ! LoL !  

[Vod]

How do I get on this list?  

For some reason TS grabbed a relatively ancient version of marlboroza's included by list and used it as the basis for his new list. So I don't know, its a mystery.

I can't believe I never had marlboroza in my trust list. I must have misspelled his name when I originally set up my list a long time ago. What an embarrassing oversight.

You claim you misspelled it - I think it was trust abuse.  

marlboroza has a suggestive name and I often misspell it too.  Used to live here and saw his face everywhere.

marlboroza is a good guy.  The fact the trolls hate him "proves" it to me.  I should thank him for that "proof", but that would lower the reputation/expectation of my future proof.

[nutildah]

Marlboroza should not be in any sane person's trust list who knows what type of abuse they support and even do as noted in this thread itself. Anyone trusting them is supporting groupism and mobbing here overall and is against neutral and unbiased judgement.

Get me out of DT1 ! LoL !  

Here is the real list of marlboroza's filthy enablers (current DT1 who have included him, plus me):

Balthazar
Vod
Foxpup
Avirunes
suchmoon
JayJuanGee
Royse777
LoyceV
actmyname
SFR10
TwitchySeal
xtraelv
crwth
nullius
KTChampions
tvplus006
gospodin
witcher_sense
Alex_Sr
morvillz7z
Coolcryptovator
lovesmayfamilis
DireWolfM14
TalkStar
1miau
YOSHIE

Hmm... one of them you even have included in your own trust list. Better run this by the Objective Standards Guild to see how it fits in with your prescribed principles.

You claim you misspelled it - I think it was trust abuse.   

Could be... To think I was sitting next to him in the Clown Car all this time, and I was actually riding in the trunk...

[JollyGood]

I removed marlboroza from my trust list a long time ago I think because from what I recall he specifically asked to not be added to any list.

Maybe that has since changed, if it has I would like to add him too.

[Vod]

I removed marlboroza from my trust list a long time ago I think because from what I recall he specifically asked to not be added to any list.

So you removed him because he asked?   That's trust abuse! 

Be careful - if you trust someone and they ask you not to, do you trust them enough to not trust them?

https://youtu.be/EzVxsYzXI_Y?t=89

[marlboroza]

Be careful - if you trust someone and they ask you not to, do you trust them enough to not trust them?

I've read this few times lol.

How do I get on this list? 

You will need one of these:

To think I was sitting next to him in the Clown Car all this time, and I was actually riding in the trunk...

Heey, I thought you are the one driving clown car! Damn red nose confused me!

~

Elaborate

[TECSHARE]

Thanks everyone posting for making it public knowledge you treat the trust system as a plaything and actively add people explicitly because they abuse the trust system by leaving negative ratings for the high crime of disagreeing with their accusations.

[marlboroza]

~

Elaborate this 

Elaborate.

Elaborate

Elaborate.

[TECSHARE]

DONE

~marlboroza

Seems moderators don't want to remove your post, but I will tag you for lying and maliciously trying to move this topic into different direction, unlike you, I care about default trust system and I don't want abusers and abuser supporters in it, let this "DONE" serve as reference:



@TECSHARE I am asking you again to leave this topic. You are not allowed to post here.

marlboroza   2020-05-26   Reference   Liar. Maliciously hijacking topic.


So this is what the trust system is reduced to now is it? If you disagree with people you get a red tag. If you seek redress from the community for the abuse of the system, they add the abuser and treat the system not only like a joke, but as a tool to harass people. This system which is supposed to protect people from fraud is simply a toy for you to play with, and like all naughty little children you should have your toys taken away. If this is the standard for the trust system now, Theymos should probably just scrub negative ratings and go exclusively with flags backed by evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws. If this community has proven anything, it is that it simply is not mature enough to enforce any kind of self restraint or equitable standards.

[Vod]

...If you seek redress from the community for the abuse of the system, they add the abuser and treat the system not only like a joke, but as a tool to harass people...

There is your disconnection, troll.  Why would the community help you when you abuse trust?   Clean your hands.

[TECSHARE]

...If you seek redress from the community for the abuse of the system, they add the abuser and treat the system not only like a joke, but as a tool to harass people...

There is your disconnection, troll.  Why would the community help you when you abuse trust?   Clean your hands.

What trust abuse Vod? Be specific.

[Vod]

What trust abuse Vod? Be specific.

The negative trust you have left for people you do not like.

Or the refusal of the same type of explanations you demand from others. 

~

Elaborate this 

Elaborate.

Elaborate

Elaborate.

[TECSHARE]

What trust abuse Vod? Be specific.

The negative trust you have left for people you do not like.

Or the refusal of the same type of explanations you demand from others. 

~

Elaborate this 

Elaborate.

Elaborate

Elaborate.

That is not very specific Vod.

[TwitchySeal]

What trust abuse Vod? Be specific.

The negative trust you have left for people you do not like.

Or the refusal of the same type of explanations you demand from others. 

Don't forget this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837

[TECSHARE]

What trust abuse Vod? Be specific.

The negative trust you have left for people you do not like.

Or the refusal of the same type of explanations you demand from others. 

Don't forget this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837

See:

In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to first operate on the assumption that your timeline means anything other than more assumptions on your part. You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands, or else I am "manufacturing timelines". It is not that you are making baseless assumptions, no, not at all, it is because I am "manufacturing timelines" that my replies don't meet the standards of your demands.

Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions.

Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. Is this where you tell me again what is a valid reason for me deciding who I do or don't include based on your own personal preferences? Nothing you are accusing me of is anything that couldn't literally be applied to any other member actively using custom trust lists. Much like a fed uses process crimes to charge people with crimes when they have no evidence, you are using the idea that I don't meet your arbitrary standards in your interrogation as "proof" of my guilt. This is all just a game you are playing to pursue your own vendetta.

But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were, I ask that people look at the body of evidence presented and come to their own conclusions.

There is no "body of evidence". There are a string of assumptions, with accusations stacked on top of them upon which even more assumptions were based. That is not evidence, that is at best theorizing and nothing a trust rating should be based on. Once again, I manufactured nothing. You seem intent on this being some kind of deception, just like all your other assumptions here.

Some of the users I included because I thought their trust lists were beneficial, some of them I included because of their response to the advice concerning the removal of support from a frivolous flag. It is as simple as that, no "manufacturing of timelines" needed. This is purely a projection on your part designed to impugn my character to serve your own personal vendettas, and the vendettas of people like Vod.

Vultures like you saw I was achieving something positive and did a deep dive into my toilet bowl looking for any peanut fragments you could find in order to tarnish this effort that yielded positive results, because if I have a say in the default trust, I will erode the unilateral control and protection from being penalized for your own abuses that you and your friends currently enjoy. All the same people abusing negative ratings against me are all the same peanut hunters that are the most vocal in opposition to my calls for an objective standard of evidence before leaving negative ratings. This is about serving yourself, not about protecting the forum from me.

So Vod, clearly I abuse the trust system according to you... why is it whenever anyone asks you to substantiate your claims you can never do it and always default to just claiming you already have?

[TwitchySeal]

So Vod, clearly I abuse the trust system according to you... why is it whenever anyone asks you to substantiate your claims you can never do it and always default to just claiming you already have?

Because he has.

Check the reference link for the negative feedback he left you for abusing the trust system.

I get it, you don't agree that with him - but he's already explained why he did it and it's been explained to you countless times.  Continuing to ask won't change anything.

[TECSHARE]

Because he has.

Check the reference link for the negative feedback he left you for abusing the trust system.

I get it, you don't agree that with him - but he's already explained why he did it and it's been explained to you countless times.  Continuing to ask won't change anything.

He really hasn't. The reference is nutlduuh making assumptions about why I included people based on nothing whatsoever. As you can see above Nutilduuh freely admitted it was nothing but an assumption. If assumptions are the standard of evidence then I guess we can assume you and Vod both get together to rob children of their milk money. Making baseless assumptions is fun!

[TwitchySeal]

Because he has.

Check the reference link for the negative feedback he left you for abusing the trust system.

I get it, you don't agree that with him - but he's already explained why he did it and it's been explained to you countless times.  Continuing to ask won't change anything.

He really hasn't. The reference is nutlduuh making assumptions about why I included people based on nothing whatsoever. As you can see above Nutilduuh freely admitted it was nothing but an assumption. If assumptions are the standard of evidence then I guess we can assume you and Vod both get together to rob children of their milk money. Making baseless assumptions is fun!

Yes it's an assumption.  But it's not baseless.

The feedback you've left him is also an assumption.  And also not baseless.

We all make assumptions all the time, including you.  There's no need to point it out every time.

[Vod]

That is not very specific Vod.

Stop ignoring questions if you want others to answer, troll.  You accuse marlboroza in this thread; he is allowed to defend himself.