Trust System Abuse By Nullius

[suchmoon]

she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public)

Where did I force "private information to be public"?

[1715349527]

1715349527

[1715349527]

1715349527

[1715349527]

1715349527

[1715349527]

1715349527

[Quickseller]

she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public)

Where did I force "private information to be public"?

e pushing it to the point that the public will have a valid interest in my dumping our PM discussions into this thread as evidence of what is really going on here.  That may compromise an investigation which is as yet in its early stages.  The damage would be limited (even if probably irreparable), because I was sufficiently prudent to only entrust to you a limited amount of information; and I need to weigh that against permitting you to sow discord in public and rake Lauda over the coals for something which you yourself know about—which you know she can’t talk about, for the reasons that I stated to you.  In effect, you are knowingly obstructing justice for the sake of your desire to Win An Internet Argument.  You despicable, spoiled brat, seizing the advantage when you have sufficient information to reasonably infer that Lauda cannot defend herself here without violating my trust and harming the forum!

Which was in response to:

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. Don't waste time arguing this, move on to other parts of this situation. Thanks.

It's been 4+ months since the referenced events, what's the rush to tag him now and not wait until you're ready to un-withhold the knowledge?

[mindrust]

There is no private message feature on the forum. If you agree to keep information private, you should do so and you shouldn’t try to strong arm the disclosure of private information, nor to strong arm someone into vouching for private information.

I  don’t think a reasonable person would believe it is not safe to trade with techshare. To my knowledge he doesn’t have any trade complaints, he is not taking steps to have larger amounts of other people’s money at once and appears to take steps to be transparent about terms of his trades. Most of his negative ratings are about personal disputes in which nothing of value is involved. I don’t particularly like Suchmoon, and I find it hilarious to see her on her heels when not supporting the most powerful side in a dispute after year of her brownosing any and everyone in power who are involved in a dispute, but she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public). Techshare may have viewpoints or opinions that others might view are “bad” but they do not nearly reach the level that makes him dangerous to trade with.

Here is a trusted account seller. Voice of reason. A public role model.

Seeing how the events have turned out lately, I don't really see any valid reason for the red trusts on your account anymore.

I think you should report those people who gave you red trust to theymos, for trust abuse.

As far as I know you are an honest account seller. You even sold a DT account... you are that good at your job.

I think your chances of becoming a dt1 member has increased in the last few days, a lot. Maybe you'll even become a staff member some day...

Shine on!

[Quickseller]

There is no private message feature on the forum. If you agree to keep information private, you should do so and you shouldn’t try to strong arm the disclosure of private information, nor to strong arm someone into vouching for private information.

I  don’t think a reasonable person would believe it is not safe to trade with techshare. To my knowledge he doesn’t have any trade complaints, he is not taking steps to have larger amounts of other people’s money at once and appears to take steps to be transparent about terms of his trades. Most of his negative ratings are about personal disputes in which nothing of value is involved. I don’t particularly like Suchmoon, and I find it hilarious to see her on her heels when not supporting the most powerful side in a dispute after year of her brownosing any and everyone in power who are involved in a dispute, but she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public). Techshare may have viewpoints or opinions that others might view are “bad” but they do not nearly reach the level that makes him dangerous to trade with.

Here is a trusted account seller. Voice of reason. A public role model.

Seeing how the events have turned out lately, I don't really see any valid reason for the red trusts on your account anymore.

I think you should report those people who gave you red trust to theymos, for trust abuse.

As far as I know you are an honest account seller. You even sold a DT account... you are that good at your job.

I think your chances of becoming a dt1 member has increased in the last few days, a lot.

Shine on!

I have not traded in forum accounts in probably 4-5 years, and about a year ago proposed the banning of the sale of forum accounts. I was also on DT and the subject of smear campaigns around the time I was on DT. This was when being on DT was much more exclusive than it is now. Nice ad hominem attack though.

[eddie13]

she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public)

Where did I force "private information to be public"?

Making a claim based on information he refuses to disclose is ridiculous..
As if we are supposed to trust nullius to be some sort of secret agent man with a security clearance where we should trust his claims without seeing the "sensitive" information ourselves because he is the only one good enough to see it..

If he wants everyone to agree with and support his tags he needs to produce this secret evidence because it does not stand on his questionable word alone..
i.e. Kalemder

[suchmoon]

Which was in response to:

How is that "forcing private information to be public"? All I'm saying is that in my opinion the red tag on Kalemder has no basis. If you think "trust me, I have evidence" is a valid reason for red trust in this case - feel free to add nullius and Lauda to all your trust lists.

[Quickseller]

Which was in response to:

How is that "forcing private information to be public"? All I'm saying is that in my opinion the red tag on Kalemder has no basis. If you think "trust me, I have evidence" is a valid reason for red trust in this case - feel free to add nullius and Lauda to all your trust lists.

Like this:

she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public)

Where did I force "private information to be public"?

Making a claim based on information he refuses to disclose is ridiculous..
As if we are supposed to trust nullius to be some sort of secret agent man with a security clearance where we should trust his claims without seeing the "sensitive" information ourselves because he is the only one good enough to see it..

If he wants everyone to agree with and support his tags he needs to produce this secret evidence because it does not stand on his questionable word alone..
i.e. Kalemder

[eddie13]

What's wrong with advising him to either produce the evidence or remove the tag, otherwise likely be removed from DT?

[TECSHARE]

Rather arbitrary to make this accusation isn't it?

Not to me.. I may very well tag someone for breaching such an agreement with me, if an agreement was made thereby closing the loophole..

If nullius shared "sensitive" information with SM it is likely he asked for it not to be shared, thereby closing the loophole..
I can't know that though, but just the threat on its own is greasy..

I meant outside of an explicit agreement, it is rather arbitrary... If an explicit agreement was made then I agree absolutely.

[figmentofmyass]

What's wrong with advising him to either produce the evidence or remove the tag, otherwise likely be removed from DT?

nothing.

why is no one bothered by this whole attitude of "we have an active investigation into this perp, he's guilty, no need to provide evidence, trust us"....? police, judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one, and with DT privileges too.

this is the default trust system on display, right here.

[eddie13]

this is the default trust system on display, right here.

Well null was removed from DT for it quite quickly, so it kinda works..
Lauda on the other hand, won't be removed for the same action that would get nullius removed though so their's your DT compromises in action..

@Kalemder since I see you are around.. I don't think you will be removed from your signature campaign for these tags or be judged badly by most over them so no need to freak out or anything.. I think most including DarkStar_ will ignore it..


After all that bitching about targeting the Turks over the CM campaign, I don't know how you could make that any more suspicious..
Are you actually trying to lend their point further credence or rile them up some more??

[TMAN]

Fucking hate to say this, but perhaps people should be judging QS on his recent behaviour more than what happened..  I mean he has made up with Lauda enough for them to be civil.

Can’t we all take a step back, stop reacting emotionally and all smoke a fat J before responding

[mindrust]

Fucking hate to say this, but perhaps people should be judging QS on his recent behaviour more than what happened..  I mean he has made up with Lauda enough for them to be civil.

Can’t we all take a step back, stop reacting emotionally and all smoke a fat J before responding

What now? Can we do everything against the forum rules and get pardoned just because we acted reasonable in the last few weeks?

I quit smoking 2 years ago.

If this is how things will go from now on, fine by me. I'll remember.

[figmentofmyass]

this is the default trust system on display, right here.

Well null was removed from DT for it quite quickly, so it kinda works..

that's probably due to the frivolous tag against TECSHARE more than anything else. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.msg53725442#msg53725442

who knows for sure, but my long term observation is that lesser known members (like Kalemder) are rarely given the same consideration in the face of unproven accusations. that's just the sad reality.

Are you actually trying to lend their point further credence or rile them up some more??

how would i be lending their point credence?

if anything i'm trying to rile myself up into leaving counter feedback, since i know it will lead to more unfounded accusations against me. i'm already called a "trust abuser" / "scam defender" / "malicious distractor" because i asked for actual real proof or consistency in DT feedback a couple times.

Can’t we all take a step back, stop reacting emotionally and all smoke a fat J before responding

all day, everyday.....

[TMAN]

I’ve been a prolific hater of QS for years but I really respect his recent change on the forum. I can’t believe I’m saying this but maybe everyone should stop judging him on his past behaviour so heavily. The bloke knows his shit and can be an asset here. It’s not the same as forgiving TOAA, QS fucked up and has started to admit faults. I’m not suggesting to add him on your trust list but maybe people should give him a little leeway and see what happens. Come on people if Lauda and QS have kissed, made up and seem to be enjoying some mutual masturbation then maybe everyone else should chill and see what happens

Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit

[eddie13]

I just noticed that suchmoon almost simultaneously opposed me in this thread and in TECSHARE’s thread against me, after never having had any significant conflict with me before.  Do you think that’s right, eddie?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220203.msg53747706#msg53747706

Yes..

Also note, their is nothing wrong with me or anyone else agreeing with you on one topic while simultaneously disagreeing with you on another..

Are you actually trying to lend their point further credence or rile them up some more?? (Turks-ChipMixer)

how would i be lending their point credence?

I meant those trying to tag Kalemder, not you..

I’ve been a prolific hater of QS for years but I really respect his recent change on the forum. I can’t believe I’m saying this but maybe everyone should stop judging him on his past behaviour so heavily. The bloke knows his shit and can be an asset here.

Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit

Start a rep thread on it bro.. I like your being drunk and knowing things but it's a bit OT here, though I would like to see that topic play out..

[suchmoon]

QS fucked up and has started to admit faults.

I'll withhold my lenience until he's finished admitting faults, and it's gonna be a long wait.

Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit

Can be easily fixed by more drinking, trust me on that one, I have secret empirical evidence.

I just noticed that suchmoon almost simultaneously opposed me in this thread and in TECSHARE’s thread against me, after never having had any significant conflict with me before.  Do you think that’s right, eddie?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220203.msg53747706#msg53747706

I detest the implication that if I'm not in a conflict with someone then opposing them is not "right". Maybe nullius was simultaneously wrong or maybe we just simultaneously disagree.

[TECSHARE]

I’ve been a prolific hater of QS for years but I really respect his recent change on the forum. I can’t believe I’m saying this but maybe everyone should stop judging him on his past behaviour so heavily. The bloke knows his shit and can be an asset here. It’s not the same as forgiving TOAA, QS fucked up and has started to admit faults. I’m not suggesting to add him on your trust list but maybe people should give him a little leeway and see what happens. Come on people if Lauda and QS have kissed, made up and seem to be enjoying some mutual masturbation then maybe everyone else should chill and see what happens

Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit

This has kind of been my view for some time. He seems genuinely motivated. I don't necessarily trust or like him, but so what? He is at least ATTEMPTING to contribute and not actively robbing people. Unless he is on one of his infamous rampages I don't see any reason to go after him, let alone engage with him if you don't like him.

QS fucked up and has started to admit faults.

I'll withhold my lenience until he's finished admitting faults, and it's gonna be a long wait.

Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit

Can be easily fixed by more drinking, trust me on that one, I have secret empirical evidence.

I just noticed that suchmoon almost simultaneously opposed me in this thread and in TECSHARE’s thread against me, after never having had any significant conflict with me before.  Do you think that’s right, eddie?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220203.msg53747706#msg53747706

I detest the implication that if I'm not in a conflict with someone then opposing them is not "right". Maybe nullius was simultaneously wrong or maybe we just simultaneously disagree.

Nope, you disagree, therefore you "attack people who stop forum abuse, manipulate DT voting, and otherwise undermine the trust system." Clearly more negative trust ratings are in order!

[pugman]

Okay a few things, I don't think TECSHARE should be red-tagged for having his "controversial" opinions, or for his way of things. People have traded with him, and things have gone smoothly well. I think, that should provide as a base of making him trustworthy enough.

The system is of trust, and not trade yes, but the trust only comes from a trading perspective. Again, red trust means, you believe the person is very likely to scam someone. So if you believe tecshare is someone who will scam others, than tag away by all means. 

But tagging someone just because they have exchanged words with you, or has a different opinion on things, doesn't morally feel right(IMO) and doesn't make him a scammer. Cause, negative trust pretty much represents behaviors of a scammer. If you don't trust/like someone, remove/exclude them from your trust list, that's what it is intended for.

A red tag would make sense if the person in question has never traded with anyone, and gives opinions that make the person feel untrustworthy like. But if the person has a good enough trade history, a red tag would definitely seem a little harsh. 

Funnily enough, TECSHARE and QS are both not the kind of people who would scam others, but are still red-tagged(but yes, QS and Tecshare are both very different different people).

[marlboroza]

if anything i'm trying to rile myself up into leaving counter feedback, since i know it will lead to more unfounded accusations against me. i'm already called a "trust abuser" / "scam defender" / "malicious distractor" because i asked for actual real proof or consistency in DT feedback a couple times.

I exactly know what you are talking about! I have also asked for proofs dozen times already for various things, but seems I am still trust abuser and mob! No proofs ever came! And seems some accounts have been excluded from someone's trust network because of the same thing! Crazy!  
Anyway, regarding feedbacks on account TECSHARE

1) I countered Vod's feedback long time ago

2) I placed feedback "troll" because after closer look I figured out that user is trolling (I previously removed counter)

3) Someone told me why I shouldn't leave feedback if someone is troll so I removed -ve

4) Actually, this was second "trolling" feedback I had to remove, so no -ve for trolling, I get it!

5) What he does is speaking one thing and doing another (it is documented, if someone wants to pretend they don't see it, well, it is not my fucking problem)

6) It is obvious what TECSHARE did here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182990.msg52406348#msg52406348, well, we can discuss whether this is true or not, we can also all drop to room temperature IQ and talk whether lemon is yellow or red, or is fake coin scam or not, it is also not my problem)

7) His most claims are not backed up with any proof, like his claim in this topic for example (I AM STILL WAITING FOR PROOF OF CONNECTION - someone also expressed strong opinion against this in that other thread, nothing about this in this thread, nothing about that in that other thread - DOUBLE STANDARDS!)

theymos should fix 8

9) T reminds me of politicians a lot, that is not good, for a trusted person, I can't trust users who he has on his trust list, no one should, that is really bad actually. Not to mention some inclusions he doesn't want to remove.

10) Finally, I was thinking a lot lately, TECSHARE is trusted trader but that doesn't mean he is not a big troll, still, I can trust him with trades as he has very long trading history, but some of his "actions"...uh uh uh...still, as I said, he IS trusted trader, should not be tagged <-- which is worth for this discussion.

11) And no, I won't stop pointing his nonsense and some weird theories which he has formed in his mind:

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.

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


This post is not open for discussion!

TMAN is more drunk.. TS is still a cunt,. Any more updates?

Don't drive.