Trust System Abuse By Nullius

[eddie13]

you have made a fool of yourself

Using extremely weakly founded negative trust ratings to attack users you disagree with is how you make a fool of yourself..
Obvious motives behind negative ratings are obvious..

You can't beat him in a debate so you have to personally attack him or what?
That's what it looks like..

You want to stomp his ass? Do it with logic, not ad-hominems.. 

[1714900338]

1714900338

[1714900338]

1714900338

[1714900338]

1714900338

[DireWolfM14]

This thread contains a metric-shit-tonne of proof that a well read, highly educated, technically sophisticated, articulate writer can still be a complete buffoon.  There's a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom.  

@nullius, you're nowhere near as smart as you (and apparently many merit sources) think you are.  Obviously you're not stupid, you must have the capacity to learn.  But don't let your arrogance get in the way of continuing to learn.

[Lauda]

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges.

Nowhere did I say, nor mean to imply the above.. I used this as an example within a set of actions by individuals, with whom others may not want to trade because of said actions.

If that is your opinion, it is certainly a respectable opinion—and I never thought otherwise, as to suchmoon’s seemingly quite similar opinion.  But the question is, do you think that reasonable disagreement with that opinion is grounds for ~exclusion?

This is also another factor that is completely being ignored and hasn't been addressed in the public as it is yet another ugly truth of the system. "Agree to disagree" card gets played, but since you're outranked and outnumbered we will kick you out because why not? Complete lapses in judgement (see Yahoo & Yobit situation, being the most recent) are not sufficient for an exclusion, but a singular rating which you disagree with is? Please.

..but the system has spiraled from decentralization into a weird form of nepotism-based democracy with selective judicial enforcement)..

[eddie13]

This thread contains a metric-shit-tonne of proof that a well read, highly educated, technically sophisticated, articulate writer can still be a complete buffoon.  There's a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom.  

lol good post

Your self confidence that you are not is a mistake IMO that will come back to bite you..
Excessive confidence and absolutism may make you seem smart when you are correct, but when you are eventually and inevitably wrong it doesn't leave much room to correct yourself or save face..

If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he wouldn't be using this case as a last stand so soon into his career here..

The odds aren't good for you here nullius..
You sure you want to go down in flames over your disagreement with TECSHARE's trust list?

Choose your battles more wisely.. <That is advice..

[Lauda]

The odds aren't good for you here nullius..
You sure you want to go down in flames over your disagreement with TECSHARE's trust list?

If a single rating some people disagree with makes someone else "go down in flames", then we can append another ugly-truth to the list of topics that should be visited.    I'm trying to find the point in time where this system quickly spiraled into this direction, as this was not the case before. Did I mention the politicization of merit and its close relation to this issue yet?
Again, please note - not arguing anything on the specific rating that was sent.

[suchmoon]

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges.

Nowhere did I say, nor mean to imply the above.. I used this as an example within a set of actions by individuals, with whom others may not want to trade because of said actions.

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

• Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
• Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
• General deceptive behavior.
• Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.

I disagree that red trust for trolling (from the list above) is a valid use of DT privileges. Neutral - possibly, depending on circumstances.

If that's not what you meant then I don't know why you're bringing it up. Theymos definitely didn't mean that red trust for trolling is a valid use as shown by his other quote posted earlier by o_e_l_e_o.

a singular rating which you disagree

Definitely not a single rating in nullius' case. At least one other was already mentioned in this thread, and that's just for the last two days. There are 3 or 4 other reds that I consider inappropriate so for me that makes the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough for an exclusion.

[Lauda]

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges.

Nowhere did I say, nor mean to imply the above.. I used this as an example within a set of actions by individuals, with whom others may not want to trade because of said actions.

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

• Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
• Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
• General deceptive behavior.
• Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.

I disagree that red trust for trolling (from the list above) is a valid use of DT privileges. Neutral - possibly, depending on circumstances.

If that's not what you meant then I don't know why you're bringing it up. Theymos definitely didn't mean that red trust for trolling is a valid use as shown by his other quote posted earlier by o_e_l_e_o.

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

As you were solely concerned about trade and not trust, I've listed reasons why I (and others) may not want to trade with someone. Following from this, they are potential bases for ratings, it doesn't mean that I argue that every single one of those is appropriate for DT members. I don't even really agree with the first point (although may have left some in the past), I was just trying to be fair by including it..

a singular rating which you disagree

Definitely not a single rating in nullius' case. At least one other was already mentioned in this thread, and that's just for the last two days. There are 3 or 4 other reds that I consider inappropriate so for me that makes the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough for an exclusion.

Fair point, and thus I withdraw that in relation to nullius and you. However, I'm also arguing that it shouldn't be done for singular cases in general, otherwise it will undermine stability and strengthen nepotism and chaos ("comply with every single order or you're out" kind of thing).

[TECSHARE]

~

None of the accusations made against me by Vod, Nutilduh, Lauda, or you have any basis in reality whatsoever, but you all have one thing in common, you really don't like what I have to say and want to find any way you can to punish me for saying it, using the trust system and lots of creative writing skills if need be. By definition, everyone on the default trust list "manipulates" it in some way. The claims against me have no factual support, and are just the fantasies of some one with severe antipathy toward me and who I choose to put on my trust list. It is rather convenient for them they just get to unilaterally decide who is acceptable to add to trust lists and who is not, and if you choose people they don't agree with then you are "manipulating" it, or "trading votes".

None of these people have any evidence of this whatsoever, they just have logs showing additions of people to trust lists, which they claim are proof of vote trading because they happened within a short time of the other. This same standard could LITERALLY be applied to anyone on the default trust making changes to their lists, the only difference is some of you are looking for a reason to confirm your own bias against me, and this was plausible enough for you to feel like it wouldn't blow back against you for supporting the theory. Everything else past this point is just more people with serious grudges/obsessions with me attempting to spin this initial baseless accusation to get their own retribution using the trust system as a weapon to do so.

Very few people around here are willing to put up with this kind of systemic abuse in the name of speaking freely. If there is no one willing to call out these types of people who perpetuate it because they don't want to deal with the attacks, then this community will be ruled by abusive tyrannical control freaks. Which is worse, me being annoying from time to time calling them out, or them? People like me are easy to avoid. People like them attempt to insert themselves into every facet of your lives.

[mindrust]

The thing most people missing here is, trust works in layers. Like a pyramid.

At the top of the pyramid, there are common scums like hyip/ponzi promoters, people who say that they can crack the genesis block, bsv promoters etc. These are obviously scammers and there are no problems with the negative trust ratings you leave on them. [Layer 1]

Then there are account sellers and account farmers. These belong to the layer 2 on the pyramid. These are getting negative trust ratings too. Do you know why they are getting tagged? It is because they are enabling the upper layer of scammers. I am sure nobody here is arguing against this. [Layer 2]

Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]

Now, why it is appropriate to tag an account seller but not a trust abuser? An account seller can be trusted as long as he delivers what he promises. If you ask him, he'll tell you that he is doing an honest job!! Both the buyer and the seller are happy. The buyer gets his account, the seller gets his money, who are you to tag both of these people? He didn't scam anybody on paper!

If you are tagging account sellers&farmers, why is there a problem with tagging a trust abuser?

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Given that trust is not moderated, and theymos has taken steps to remove himself as "leader" of the trust system, I don't think he would ever come out and say "Users must" or "Users should", so I think "In his view" is the closest we are going to get to guidelines or rules for use of the trust system.

Now, although I don't agree with these ratings, and I wouldn't leave them myself, I'm unlikely to exclude anybody over them. The same is true for feedback left for the other trolls I mentioned in my previous post; in fact, looking at TOAA's trust wall for example, there are more than few users who have left him a negative I don't agree with whom I actively include. No one is ever going to have the exact same standards as you regarding leaving trust, and so your own trust list can never be anything more than a compromise.

As Lauda has pointed out above, there are a myriad of reasons why a user may not want to trade with another user. If you feel a reason warrants negative trust, then I might argue against it, but ultimately you are entirely free to leave said red trust. However, if someone else disagrees with your ratings, then they are entirely free to exclude you so they don't see them. The same unmoderated trust system that permits you to leave ratings others don't agree with, permits others to place exclusions you don't agree with. Exclusions aren't personal attacks, simply a disagreement of opinions, and sometimes a compromise in an imperfect system.

[TECSHARE]

The thing most people missing here is, trust works in layers. Like a pyramid.

At the top of the pyramid, there are common scums like hyip/ponzi promoters, people who say that they can crack the genesis block, bsv promoters etc. These are obviously scammers and there are no problems with the negative trust ratings you leave on them. [Layer 1]

Then there are account sellers and account farmers. These belong to the layer 2 on the pyramid. These are getting negative trust ratings too. Do you know why they are getting tagged? It is because they are enabling the upper layer of scammers. I am sure nobody here is arguing against this. [Layer 2]

Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]

Now, why it is appropriate to tag an account seller but not a trust abuser? An account seller can be trusted as long as he delivers what he promises. If you ask him, he'll tell you that he is doing an honest job!! Both the buyer and the seller are happy. The buyer gets his account, the seller gets his money, who are you to tag both of these people? He didn't scam anybody on paper!

If you are tagging account sellers&farmers, why is there a problem with tagging a trust abuser?

Ah look, another person that can't handle being called out on their bad behavior who thinks the trust system is a weapon to fight their petty vendettas with.

[Quickseller]

Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]

Criminal lawyers are bad? You must not believe in due process or basic fairness. Without criminal lawyers, you won’t really know who is actually guilty and it will lessen the effect of being labeled as guilty because others will question if anyone is truly guilty when there is no due process. 

[mindrust]

Ah look, another person that can't handle being called out on their bad behavior who thinks the trust system is a weapon to fight their petty vendettas with.

Please don't talk if you don't actually have anything to counter my arguments.

[TECSHARE]

Ah look, another person that can't handle being called out on their bad behavior who thinks the trust system is a weapon to fight their petty vendettas with.

Please don't talk if you don't actually have anything to counter my arguments.

That's what the link was for, to counter your arguments.

[mindrust]

Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]

Criminal lawyers are bad? You must not believe in due process or basic fairness. Without criminal lawyers, you won’t really know who is actually guilty and it will lessen the effect of being labeled as guilty because others will question if anyone is truly guilty when there is no due process.  

Criminal lawyers are good as long as they work as intended.

Maybe I should have said

(Criminal)  Criminal Lawyers.

Happy now?

[figmentofmyass]

Tagging TS because you don't like he way he sets his trust list? Why?
I can see it as a desperate rating from Vod but why back it up? It's just a weapon against TS because you don't like him..

Kalemder with the same reference? Just why?
Because he included TS?
Why?

Their is no solid reference to either of them gaming the trust system..
It is only speculation and very weak speculation at that..
Tons of users have many mutual inclusions..

perfect description of the situation. i'm baffled by the reference post. it proves nothing. if you don't like someone's trust inclusions, then ~ them. that's long been established as the appropriate response. negative DT2 feedback should not be based on such baseless speculation.

it looks like nullius got kicked off DT2, but Kalemder 's account still has one seemingly undeserved DT tag.

[Lauda]

Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]

Criminal lawyers are bad? You must not believe in due process or basic fairness. Without criminal lawyers, you won’t really know who is actually guilty and it will lessen the effect of being labeled as guilty because others will question if anyone is truly guilty when there is no due process.  

Criminal lawyers are good as long as they work as intended.

I think he may be referring to high-IQ individuals who are criminals may become lawyers (and other entities e.g. bankers - which would be the low level layer enabling the higher level's). This part of nulliuses post:

Many high-IQ people are dishonest, criminal-minded scum.  They usually become politicians, lawyers, bankers, brainwallet advocates, Bcashers...

it looks like nullius got kicked off DT2, but Kalemder 's account still has one seemingly undeserved DT tag.

Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate (deceptive behavior is appropriate reasoning), and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid.

[suchmoon]

Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate, and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid.

How can he DYOR... DHOR if the things he's unfamiliar with are not present in your feedback or in the reference post? Either put it out there or hold the red paint until the "investigation" is complete.

[figmentofmyass]

it looks like nullius got kicked off DT2, but Kalemder 's account still has one seemingly undeserved DT tag.

Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate, and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid.

calling me ignorant doesn't change the fact that your claims are not self-evident. you're essentially arguing from authority, saying that you don't need to justify yourself to anyone.

i've researched the reference you included; it does not appear to prove anything. you say that Kalemder is engaging in "manipulation" and "chicanery"---how, just by having mutual trust list inclusions?

[Lauda]

Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate, and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid.

How can he DYOR... DHOR if the things he's unfamiliar with are not present in your feedback or in the reference post? Either put it out there or hold the red paint until the "investigation" is complete.

See my update, which was just shortly before you responded. Also, you did not complain this much about any unstated evidence on PN7 = QS. This is a double-standard.

(deceptive behavior is appropriate reasoning),

Also, DYOR =/= following my reference.

you're essentially arguing from authority, say

Statistical evidence of success (and/or withholding knowledge) =/= arguing from authority. It's again one of those times, one we had last month. The rating on Kalemder will stand.
Good example @OP:PHI1618. See here why I tagged him: (Reference).
This is how I tagged him:

Abusing/farming/circle-jerking merit; possibly even selling. Avoid like the plague.

According to the last update on Loyce's website, there's this:

Trust list for: TECSHARE (Trust: +31 / =4 / -3) (DT1 (-4) 618 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-01-25_Sat_05.12h)
TECSHARE Trusts these users' judgement:
75. PHI1618 (Trust: #  +0 / =0 / -1) (937 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Seriously? Those arguing against it: Find a single, objectively non-deceptive, and objectively non-malicious reason for this and I will reconsider my tag (even though this is a single example of many).
Many post updates, please update only to latest.