Trust System Abuse By Nullius

[TECSHARE]

nullius   2020-01-28      Counter to counters by figmentofmyass, BayAreaCoins, and eddie13. What, is this some schoolyard game? NO BACKSIES! — The feedback provided by by Lauda, Vod, and marlboroza is factually based, and a necessary warning to anybody who is trying to understand TECSHARE’s persistent crusade to protect forum abusers, attack people who stop forum abuse, manipulate DT voting, and otherwise undermine the trust system.

Not content with just mass tagging people who are associated with Yobit, this user now thinks it is appropriate to tag people arguing against tagging people associated with Yobit. This is what guilt via association gets you and is ever expanding. As I stated before I highly suspect this user is an alt of one of the usual members that is involved in a lot of this drama as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.

Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.

[suchmoon]

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

As much as I disagree with you on almost everything, I don't think you're "high-risk" to trade with.

[Lauda]

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

It's impossible to actually counter in the new trust system, so I don't understand any of this.

[eddie13]

will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

He is pretty smart but then gets pretty stupid with some ratings..
I think he attempts to push the limits of what he can get away with a bit too much.. Especially for a noob..

[figmentofmyass]

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

It's impossible to actually counter in the new trust system, so I don't understand any of this.

even if it doesn't restore the person's trust score, countering still seems useful where there is disputed negative feedback on someone's trust page. it at least shows there are two sides to the story. an undisputed red mark doesn't convey that.

a surprisingly gracious move by suchmoon.

[Lauda]

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

It's impossible to actually counter in the new trust system, so I don't understand any of this.

even if it doesn't restore the person's trust score, countering still seems useful where there is disputed negative feedback on someone's trust page. it at least shows there are two sides to the story. an undisputed red mark doesn't convey that.

If you think that more than 0.1% of people actually read or care about that, then you have no idea what you're doing here in regards to the trust system. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either.

[TECSHARE]

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system but I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

It's impossible to actually counter in the new trust system, so I don't understand any of this.

even if it doesn't restore the person's trust score, countering still seems useful where there is disputed negative feedback on someone's trust page. it at least shows there are two sides to the story. an undisputed red mark doesn't convey that.

a surprisingly gracious move by suchmoon.

Not really, it is just a low cost strategy to give the image of impartiality where none exists so they can abuse it later when it serves them. Marlboroza does the same thing.

[suchmoon]

Not really, it is just a low cost strategy to give the image of impartiality where none exists so they can abuse it later when it serves them. Marlboroza does the same thing.

LOL, that's the TECSHARE that we all know and love.

[eddie13]

If you think that more than 0.1% of people actually read or care about that, then you have no idea what you're doing here in regards to the trust system. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either.

Maybe the trust numbers created by counters have little meaning, but the information placed is valuable to others who look trying to independently interpret situations..

[Lauda]

If you think that more than 0.1% of people actually read or care about that, then you have no idea what you're doing here in regards to the trust system. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either.

Maybe the trust numbers created by counters have little meaning, but the information placed is valuable to others who look trying to independently interpret situations..

If there was an actual need for the counter, those "others" (assuming unbiased, and rational) wouldn't need them to find the truth to begin with. The problem is the lack of "unbiased" and "rational" people here. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either. Keep up with the advance of the system that you're using.

[nullius]

In the abstract, I look much more seriously upon frivolous positive feedback than upon questionable negatives.  You will notice that I have never yet left a positive for anybody, ever.  (I have been intending one for Lauda; perhaps I may consider a few others after that.)  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system

Hello, you sound almost like me. :-)

but I countered the rating nonetheless

Hey, I said, “No backsies!”  I despise this childish game of the counter to the counter to the counter.

Because it explicitly is a “counter”, I will remove my “counter” if figmentofmyass, eddie13, and BayAreaCoins all remove their positive “counters”—and not otherwise.  However, this will not stop the potential that now that I am examining TECSHARE, I may independently add my own negative feedback at some point; and such a thing would absolutely and unarguably stay put until either hell freezes over, or I mine a Bitcoin block on my Raspberry Pi.  Perhaps longer.

and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

Will you also do ~figmentofmyass and ~eddie13?  My feedback was a “counter” to their frivolous positive “counter” feedback.  It is negative, in support of Vod’s and Lauda’s negatives.  Moreover, will you ~Vod for the negative feedback that I am supporting?  I notice that you include Vod, and you are not demanding that he remove his eminently reasonable negative feedback that you are now counter-counter-countering.

(You already ~BayAreaCoins, so it is moot here.)

FYI, I left this feedback after Vod’s reference link led me to nutildah’s post on DT manipulation by TECSHARE and Kalemder, a Turkish local member whom I am investigating.  At the same time as I tagged TECSHARE, I tagged Kalemder based on nutildah’s post plus evidence that I will not yet disclose publicly.  Thanks, Vod!  Lauda’s was less useful, but only because I had already figured out for myself most of what it said.

Vod’s tip on nutildah’s post leaves me shrugging at TECSHARE’s accusations against me.  A DT manipulator tries to manipulate others into ~nullius by accusing me of his own guilt of trust system abuse?  Quelle surprise.

As much as I disagree with you [TECSHARE] on almost everything, I don't think you're "high-risk" to trade with.

The trust system has evolved to become much more than that, as you well know.

Most of my positives (including one from a moderator) are for my technical expertise, such that people who read my technical posts should know whether I know whereof I speak, or I am just spouting Internet faux-expert techno-gibberish.

I myself have been saved numerous times by negatives and informational feedback discovered through the trust system.  The forum is a dangerous place, in a good way, because freedom is dangerous:  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions; and they need such reputational information available to them as is necessary for the exercise of wise judgment.  Aside, reputational systems are a major interest of mine; and I have had some thoughts on how to improve the trust system into a cypherpunks-style cryptographic, decentralized reputational system like a PGP WoT that actually works.

With so many scammers, trolls, sockpuppets, and other miscreants hereabouts, I would not feel comfortable even posting here without the trust system.  Before I apply significant merit to a post, I check the trust system.  Before I praise someone in public, I check the trust system.  It’s not perfect; and as you know (cough), I have nearly suffered disaster due to my own foolishly excessive reliance on a single positive trust feedback from a very trustworthy person.  Cf. what I said above about my conservatism in positive feedback:  A mistaken positive can be far more harmful than an erroneous negative!

Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.

(1) You, who game the trust system, accuse your accuser of your own wrongs?  That is exactly the type of dishonest behaviour that will earn a non-“counter” negative feedback from me—on grounds similar to Vod’s, but independently of him.  One which will stay permanently.

(2) Any evidence about “alts”, or are you descending to the level of a garden-variety whiner full of “conspiracy theories”?  I have been frequently accused of being both Lauda and Satoshi, and less-frequently accused of being about a half-dozen others.  Yawn.

Note:  I will not waste my time arguing with your nonsense, other than if you have substantial evidence on point (2).

[suchmoon]

The trust system has evolved to become much more than that, as you well know.

When you post a negative rating for someone you're confirming that

You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

(emphasis mine)

You're free to think the above but I think that any reasonable person would conclude by looking at TECSHARE's trading history that trading with him is not high-risk. Debating politics with him might carry a high risk of being trolled but that doesn't call for a red rating.

Therefore your rating is unreasonable, therefore ~ and yes, I'll consider the same for Vod.

On the other hand, posting a positive rating for someone means that

You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

Which is exactly what I think and what other positive counterers (not a word, don't care) think so those are perfectly valid.

[figmentofmyass]

If you think that more than 0.1% of people actually read or care about that, then you have no idea what you're doing here in regards to the trust system. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either.

Maybe the trust numbers created by counters have little meaning, but the information placed is valuable to others who look trying to independently interpret situations..

if only 0.1% of people check trust pages to learn this information, that means inaccurate/undeserved trust scores won't be questioned by 99.9% of members. that only lends credence to the idea that DT members should not throw around red trust so lightly.

counter feedback is the only thing one can do when they see inaccurate/undeserved feedback (besides ~), so nobody should be surprised that it's done.

[eddie13]

I look much more seriously upon frivolous positive feedback than upon questionable negatives.
I am liberal with negatives [1]

I will remove my “counter” if figmentofmyass, eddie13, and BayAreaCoins all remove their positive “counters”—and not otherwise. [2]

and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

Will you also do ~figmentofmyass and ~eddie13?
[3]

Most of my positives (including one from a moderator) are for my technical expertise [4]

The trust system has evolved [5]

1. Then expect to be ~ because frivolous negatives are much more serious than frivolous positives..
Positivs can be left for something as simple as "This user seems smart", while negatives absolutely should be held to a much higher standard..  
Your personal opinion on this matter matters little..

2. Sure, as soon as Lauda and Vod remove their BS negatives on TS..
If you would like examples of why both of their ratings should be highly questioned due to blatant abuse elsewhere, LMK.. (added to the end)

3.  I doubt it..

4. You mean all your frivolous positives you have received for non-trade related subjects?

5. We are constantly evolving the trust system to what the community consensus sees fit.. The "laws" have not been drastically rewritten in any gamechanging way allowing for the frivolous use of negative trust..

______
Here in this post are good reasons users should doubt ratings left by Vod..

Vod being a liar is without question

And here.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206862.0
Are good reasons users should doubt ratings by your favorite buddy Lauda..

Should I place these references on their trust walls to warn unsuspecting users such as yourself Nully?

[Lauda]

2. Sure, as soon as Lauda and Vod remove their BS negatives on TS..
If you would like examples of why both of their ratings should be highly questioned due to blatant abuse elsewhere, LMK..

So you're saying that I can write the same stuff, infinite number of times (i.e. even reslap the same rating) as long as it is neutral? Watch what you're preaching for.
One thing that I've read between the lines over the last couple of months that you all explicitly or implicitly agree that there is no such thing as a frivolous neutral rating, even if everything in it is a complete and utter lie which is an interesting (conscious or subconscious) stance to have.

4. You mean all your frivolous positives you have received for non-trade related subjects?

This is incorrect. People are more likely to be actually trustworthy based on these long-standing ratings (i.e. continued display of X) rather than someone who just farms up with pajeet trade-deals. People really need to learn how to exercise caution when giving out positives.

counter feedback is the only thing one can do when they see inaccurate/undeserved feedback (besides ~), so nobody should be surprised that it's done.

Again, doesn't exist.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing anything in relation to OP's claim or against it.

[suchmoon]

Positivs can be left for something as simple as "This user seems smart"

Merely being smart doesn't make someone unlikely to scam so that's probably not a good reason for a positive rating.

[Lauda]

Positivs can be left for something as simple as "This user seems smart"

Merely being smart doesn't make someone unlikely to scam so that's probably not a good reason for a positive rating.

Although the evidence isn't that strong (as tends to be with psychology), the above statement is wrong. Not being smart makes you more likely of committing a crime (i.e. scamming). Here. Also as per Ellis, Beaver & Wright 2009, several personality traits correlate strongly with likelihood of committing a crime (scamming). However, in general I agree with you due to my conservative stance on issuing positive ratings as false credibility poses a huge risk of an user scamming somebody.

[eddie13]

Positivs can be left for something as simple as "This user seems smart"

Merely being smart doesn't make someone unlikely to scam so that's probably not a good reason for a positive rating.

Being smart just makes one a more dangerous scammer if they are a scammer..
I don't think its a great reason either but seems widely accepted, such as the ones Nulli has received and brags about..


Remember Robertt?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=704654

Overly smart acting, seemingly well intentioned, and overly ambitious newbies, are dangerous..

[JollyGood]

There are far too many attention seeking members in this forum. Somehow, in their own mind everything literally has to be about them...

[TECSHARE]

In the abstract, I look much more seriously upon frivolous positive feedback than upon questionable negatives.  You will notice that I have never yet left a positive for anybody, ever.  (I have been intending one for Lauda; perhaps I may consider a few others after that.)  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.

This counter nonsense probably doesn't mean shit in the new trust system

Hello, you sound almost like me. :-)

but I countered the rating nonetheless

Hey, I said, “No backsies!”  I despise this childish game of the counter to the counter to the counter.

Because it explicitly is a “counter”, I will remove my “counter” if figmentofmyass, eddie13, and BayAreaCoins all remove their positive “counters”—and not otherwise.  However, this will not stop the potential that now that I am examining TECSHARE, I may independently add my own negative feedback at some point; and such a thing would absolutely and unarguably stay put until either hell freezes over, or I mine a Bitcoin block on my Raspberry Pi.  Perhaps longer.

and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

Will you also do ~figmentofmyass and ~eddie13?  My feedback was a “counter” to their frivolous positive “counter” feedback.  It is negative, in support of Vod’s and Lauda’s negatives.  Moreover, will you ~Vod for the negative feedback that I am supporting?  I notice that you include Vod, and you are not demanding that he remove his eminently reasonable negative feedback that you are now counter-counter-countering.

(You already ~BayAreaCoins, so it is moot here.)

FYI, I left this feedback after Vod’s reference link led me to nutildah’s post on DT manipulation by TECSHARE and Kalemder, a Turkish local member whom I am investigating.  At the same time as I tagged TECSHARE, I tagged Kalemder based on nutildah’s post plus evidence that I will not yet disclose publicly.  Thanks, Vod!  Lauda’s was less useful, but only because I had already figured out for myself most of what it said.

Vod’s tip on nutildah’s post leaves me shrugging at TECSHARE’s accusations against me.  A DT manipulator tries to manipulate others into ~nullius by accusing me of his own guilt of trust system abuse?  Quelle surprise.

As much as I disagree with you [TECSHARE] on almost everything, I don't think you're "high-risk" to trade with.

The trust system has evolved to become much more than that, as you well know.

Most of my positives (including one from a moderator) are for my technical expertise, such that people who read my technical posts should know whether I know whereof I speak, or I am just spouting Internet faux-expert techno-gibberish.

I myself have been saved numerous times by negatives and informational feedback discovered through the trust system.  The forum is a dangerous place, in a good way, because freedom is dangerous:  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions; and they need such reputational information available to them as is necessary for the exercise of wise judgment.  Aside, reputational systems are a major interest of mine; and I have had some thoughts on how to improve the trust system into a cypherpunks-style cryptographic, decentralized reputational system like a PGP WoT that actually works.

With so many scammers, trolls, sockpuppets, and other miscreants hereabouts, I would not feel comfortable even posting here without the trust system.  Before I apply significant merit to a post, I check the trust system.  Before I praise someone in public, I check the trust system.  It’s not perfect; and as you know (cough), I have nearly suffered disaster due to my own foolishly excessive reliance on a single positive trust feedback from a very trustworthy person.  Cf. what I said above about my conservatism in positive feedback:  A mistaken positive can be far more harmful than an erroneous negative!

Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.

(1) You, who game the trust system, accuse your accuser of your own wrongs?  That is exactly the type of dishonest behaviour that will earn a non-“counter” negative feedback from me—on grounds similar to Vod’s, but independently of him.  One which will stay permanently.

(2) Any evidence about “alts”, or are you descending to the level of a garden-variety whiner full of “conspiracy theories”?  I have been frequently accused of being both Lauda and Satoshi, and less-frequently accused of being about a half-dozen others.  Yawn.

Note:  I will not waste my time arguing with your nonsense, other than if you have substantial evidence on point (2).

Countering a counter is not a valid use of the trust system. Either you are leaving a rating for the original reason that was countered or you are simply leaving a rating because you don't like the fact people disagree with it. Your parroting of the fairy tale narratives the trust mob has used in the past to attempt to slander me only confirms my suspicions that you are in fact an alt of one of these users. I am free to include who I like in my trust list, that doesn't make me a manipulator. You however feel the trust system is your personal cudgel to punish people who dare to not agree with you as demonstrated with this rating and your references to past attempts to slander me for the same.