Tecshare Maliciously Abused The BitcoinTalk Trust System

[Armis]

This thread is disappointing on so many levels.

Default trust, which can be such a good tool, being used as leverage and "make people learn a lesson", and what's more disturbing is that not only are people willing to turn a blind eye, but that some are even defending it.  I always thought default trust was a fairly good thing, and the self regulating nature of the community would fix any aberrant behavior, but clearly not. Looks like default trust is turning into a good old boys network.

TECSHARE is being very aggressive against anyone who speaks out against him. If you look at his sales threads you will see that he bashes anyone who tries to question him or how he describes (or prices) his products. He will not accept any kind of criticism.

He is acting especially aggressive in this case. I would say that people are not speaking out against him out of fear they will receive similar treatment that Armis received. The fact that so many people conduct business here makes receiving negative trust a torpedo to an account. The only people who have spoken out against him (vod and badbear) conduct very little business here.

As a heads up I would recommend that you be careful with all negative feedback you leave I was deemed to have "abused" the trust system with one of my feedback ratings that I left on a user that I had proved was trying to extort money from me and was slandering me. As a result of the rating I left I was removed from theymos trust tree.

This is interesting. I hear up and down how admins and mods don't ever touch feedback, the way I am being coerced to change mine I am not surprised.

He is talking about theymos removing him from his trust network, as being someone that is trusted, not as a moderator. There is a big difference. Also the mod that is "coerced" to change your feedback is giving facts and is not forcing you to change anything.

As a heads up I would recommend that you be careful with all negative feedback you leave I was deemed to have "abused" the trust system with one of my feedback ratings that I left on a user that I had proved was trying to extort money from me and was slandering me. As a result of the rating I left I was removed from theymos trust tree.

It is a bad story , but if someone is in the deafult trust list I think it's because he is an honest person and he (try) to  help the community (Like vod and tomatocage when he has stopped a lot of scammers) .


#TECSHARE  a negative feedback for "personal" issues is not necessary .

Again, you keep saying its "personal". It is NOT PERSONAL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY. I never talked with him once before he started harassing me. He is attempting to harm my BUSINESS by attacking my reputation. He got only what he was dishing out back. BTW its easy for everyone here to call this "unnecessary" when there is zero cost for you to completely ignore the situation, and I am the one that is dealing with loss of sales and harassment. Apparently because I have lots of trust I am supposed to stand perfectly still like a royal guard while tourists slap my face.

You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.

P.S. you guys keep saying "default trust". I would like to point out I am not on the default trust list.

You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

You guys keep calling this "personal", but how is him attacking my trade reputation for no valid reason, and me responding in kind to stop the behavior "personal"? He is directly attacking my ability to sell. That is beyond personal, it is directly trade related. He slandered my reputation, and I responded by marking him for his abuse. Also VOD, BTW I think it is important to mark scammers, but to be frank I don't take your feedback as seriously because you do apply it frivolously, even if MOST of them were scammers.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14

Left fake retaliation feedback because he didn't like getting busted for scamming.

Is this not what you are doing?

Here is another one you left for the same user on 9/10/13

I didn't trade with him but leaving a neg to get some red on his name so he doesn't bait anyone else. Confirmed attempted scammer.

Why did you not leave a similar disclaimer on Armis feedback? Or why did you not leave the disclaimer that he did not scam anyone?

Additionally I find it rather hilarious you have such an issue with my single use of the feedback system in this way when other users with FAR MORE trust than me on the default trust list leave negative feedback for people based only on hunches or personal opinions.

If you are posting about me, why haven't you let me know your feelings before this?  My hunches are always correct, and I try not to leave feedback based on personal opinion.  If I do, I welcome you to call me on it, or send me a PM.

The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?
[/quote]



Notice was sent to SaltySpitoon yesterday, and notice was sent to CanaryInTheMine today.

[murraypaul]

Do I didn't get all my trust for working my ass off for 3 years making sure everyone I trade with is satisfied? I never thought of it that way.

I don't know if this was in response to my post:

Looks like default trust is turning into a good old boys network.

It is, by definition, an old boys network.
You cannot get in by your own actions. You cannot get kicked out by your own actions.
It is purely the choice of the existing members.

If so, then yes you got your feedback, and overall trust numbers by proving over time that you were a trustworthy person.
Was that what got you into the default trust network? I have no idea.
If anyone in DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust+1 trusts you, then you are in.
If they don't, you aren't.
You could be the most trustworthy person in the world, but have not come to the attention of the right people, and be excluded, or you could be a confirmed scammer, and still be included, as long as one of those people maintains his trust rating. Because of account reselling, they might not even be the same people who were originally trusted.
Your extremely positive trust ratings are likely to be a good indication you are trustworthy. Simply being in the default trust network is an incredibly poor indication of that one way or the other.
The default trust network is simply a bad thing. That doesn't reflect poorly on you.

[TECSHARE]

Ok, that's fine, you can have your opinion on that, but why here? Are there not more appropriate venues? I initially didn't even want to participate in the trust system but it became an integral part of trading here whether I liked it or not. I don't understand why you expect me to defend it.

[TECSHARE]

Notice was sent to SaltySpitoon yesterday, and notice was sent to CanaryInTheMine today.

Your continued attempts at damaging my reputation are useless. Give up and delete your troll posts and your false accusations from my marketplace ops, remove me from your signature, lock this thread, and stay out of my OPs. Take responsibility for what YOU initiated. Continued escalation just demonstrates your malicious intent. I gave you an avenue for reconciliation. You can either take it, or take my trust rating for you. You don't intimidate me.

[the joint]

Do I didn't get all my trust for working my ass off for 3 years making sure everyone I trade with is satisfied? I never thought of it that way.

I don't know if this was in response to my post:

Looks like default trust is turning into a good old boys network.

It is, by definition, an old boys network.
You cannot get in by your own actions. You cannot get kicked out by your own actions.
It is purely the choice of the existing members.

If so, then yes you got your feedback, and overall trust numbers by proving over time that you were a trustworthy person.
Was that what got you into the default trust network? I have no idea.
If anyone in DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust+1 trusts you, then you are in.
If they don't, you aren't.
You could be the most trustworthy person in the world, but have not come to the attention of the right people, and be excluded, or you could be a confirmed scammer, and still be included, as long as one of those people maintains his trust rating. Because of account reselling, they might not even be the same people who were originally trusted.
Your extremely positive trust ratings are likely to be a good indication you are trustworthy. Simply being in the default trust network is an incredibly poor indication of that one way or the other.
The default trust network is simply a bad thing. That doesn't reflect poorly on you.

I don't think you can fairly say the default trust network is bad without saying the whole trust system is bad.  In both cases, the trust system assumes that people will be honest/trustworthy in using it so that you can accurately rely on the feedback.   My opinion is that there are always going to be people that abuse the trust system (just want to clarify I'm not speaking to this particular situation, but generally), and that the default trust network actually helps to mitigate this issue by indirectly ascribing more value to trustworthy accounts.  If people have an incentive to be trustworthy, i.e. to possibly 'make it' onto the default trust list and have a more valuable account, then they are more likely to be trustworthy.

[Armis]

Notice was sent to SaltySpitoon yesterday, and notice was sent to CanaryInTheMine today.

Your continued attempts at damaging my reputation are useless. Give up and delete your troll posts and your false accusations from my marketplace ops, remove me from your signature, lock this thread, and stay out of my OPs. Take responsibility for what YOU initiated. Continued escalation just demonstrates your malicious intent. I gave you an avenue for reconciliation. You can either take it, or take my trust rating for you. You don't intimidate me.

To whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave this thread and not return.    My guess is you won't respect your own arbitrary guidelines for thread content contributions.  In other words, you feel it is ok to tell me that I can't go to your threads but presumably you see no problem in coming to a thread I start to make that demand.    That is the narrow-minded mentality that makes it extremely difficult for you to see things with a reasonable perspective, for you if it isn't black or white you just don't see it, worse yet is your sense of entitlement beyond the privilege; you clearly feel that you have the right to do as you please with "your" thread, and "your" feedback; even if it means breaking someone else's rules, and trust.

You were TRUSTED to make reasonable decisions all of the time, this time you failed; you were TRUSTED to act responsibly all of the time, this time you failed; and you were TRUSTED to be honest all of the time, this time you failed.   You failed because you are human, when others saw your fail they quickly ran to your aid, but you shoved most of them away claiming to be ok -- it is not ok, you are not ok, there is nothing ok about the matter.

There's a trust line that doesn't extend to perhaps 90+% of the membership but it flows to you, it starts with the admin, and connects down to the few who should be proud to respect and honor the privilege of that trust.  You knowingly broke that trust, and inasmuch as those above you on that trust-line may be encouraging you to mend the trust you breached, you refuse like a stubborn child who won't eat his spinach -- it's for your own good.  

Whatever infraction you believe I did to provoke your wrath is gone, was gone before you issued the feedback and gone before you visited my thread.  However, most of the results of your behavior is still shining bright.  You want forgiveness for breaking the rules while the damage is still visible, but don't want to give forgiveness for a matter that no longer is visible.   That's the narrow-minded mentality at work again.  You see the splinter that was in my eye and complain while a log is in your eye.

I didn't lie in an Trust system, you did;  I didn't fraudulently claim, in a Trust report, to do business with anyone, you did; you have PROVEN yourself to be untrustworthy, I'm calling attention to that breach and asking for a resolution consistent with that breach.

As for you demanding that I not use my signature to point to my thread -- just more of that narrow-minded mentality at work yet again.  Think, could I tell you what to do with your sig? ... so why would you think you can tell me what to do with my sig?


Again, to whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave the thread and not return.

[TECSHARE]

Yes I am very convinced you were brutally victimized by me asking you to stay out of my threads, and I'm sure you did absolutely nothing to provoke this senseless & vicious attack on your impeccable character. ::: insert crocodile tears here ::: I repeat, I can ONLY sell in the market place. This is my ONLY outlet for this information and he chooses to maliciously interfere with it. He is free to criticize me on nearly the rest of the entire forum. Your superficial veneer of an excuse saying you were just "helping" doesn't hold up. Your goal was harassment from the very first post and it has been nothing but escalation from you since then. You are going to have to act if you want resolution from me. Let me know if you decide to grow up. If not that's fine with me too.

[Beastlymac]

This brings to light the need for neutral feedback. In my opinion this allows a user to leave a message on someone's profile without any rating.

[Vod]

This brings to light the need for neutral feedback. In my opinion this allows a user to leave a message on someone's profile without any rating.

I asked that that be made a feature of the new forum.

[SaltySpitoon]

I still trust Tecshare from a business standpoint, but I have removed him from my trust list. And yes I have been really busy, found out my house's wiring is shit, and I've been spending the last week or so trying to keep my house from burning down, sorry for my absence.

in short, what I mean. I trust Tecshare with my money, however he did handle this situation poorly. He asked me for advice on what to do after this incident happened, and I advised that he change his feedback to a 0 BTC risked sum. Frankly, people should be able to leave whatever feedback they want, as long as its accurate. If I wanted to leave people feedback saying, this guy is a jerk because X, I should be able to do so, however fraudulently applying a value isn't ok, which is why I pulled Tecshare from my list.

Despite this incident, I wouldn't hesitate to deal with Tecshare (personally) I wouldn't hesitate to look at feedback he has left with a bit of extra weight, however whether it was Tecshare's fault, or just a bad decision based on limitations of the trust system (lack of a neutral or whatever) being on the default trust list is a privilege which puts extra weight on your shoulders to make sure you are accurately giving feedback, and this was handled poorly.

[BadBear]

Good for you, now we just need CanaryInTheMine to weigh in so this can be resolved. I'm curious to see what he thinks.

[Quickseller]

Good for you, now we just need CanaryInTheMine to weigh in so this can be resolved. I'm curious to see what he thinks.

This technically no longer matters due to recent improvements in the trust system. All that would need to happen is one additional person on the "root" level of default trust to exclude TECSHARE for the matter to be more or less resolved.

[BadBear]

Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network. 

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.

[hilariousandco]

In short, what I mean. I trust Tecshare with my money, however he did handle this situation poorly. He asked me for advice on what to do after this incident happened, and I advised that he change his feedback to a 0 BTC risked sum. Frankly, people should be able to leave whatever feedback they want, as long as its accurate. If I wanted to leave people feedback saying, this guy is a jerk because X, I should be able to do so, however fraudulently applying a value isn't ok, which is why I pulled Tecshare from my list.

Even changing it to 0btc still wouldn't have been ok in my opinion. I don't think people in the default trust should be leaving neg rep just because they think someone is a jerk. The new neutral feedback option would've been perfect here, but most people who are pissed off or angry aren't going to use it or even if they do the person who they left it on will likely retaliate with negative.

Despite this incident, I wouldn't hesitate to deal with Tecshare (personally) I wouldn't hesitate to look at feedback he has left with a bit of extra weight, however whether it was Tecshare's fault, or just a bad decision based on limitations of the trust system (lack of a neutral or whatever) being on the default trust list is a privilege which puts extra weight on your shoulders to make sure you are accurately giving feedback, and this was handled poorly.

It was handled poorly. I like Techshare and agree that he is still trustworthy with money but he was in the wrong here and his stubbornness and attempt to bully and essentially blackmail was an abuse of the system IMO and it has now cost him.

Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network.  

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.

Everyone knows the feedback system here is heavily flawed but I can't think of any feedback system that is perfect, but I think the right thing happened here and people on the default list should be scutinised more and and held accountable when they overstep the mark. When they have, or potentially have, it should be open for discussion and people from all sides can chime in and if they have been found to abuse the system and refuse to co-operate or see their error they should be considered for removed from the list. I think the trust system can work very well but only if you can trust the people on it to make rational decisions and they aren't afraid to admit they're wrong or change their mind.  

[TECSHARE]

Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network.  

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.

Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven, but one incident after 3 years of impeccable activity here and I am out, and the people who trusted me are coerced into removing me under threat of removal themselves. This was just an excuse to make an example out of some one so you can keep forgiving your cronies for real abuse and make a scapegoat out of someone who has been an honest and dedicated user of Bitcoin and the forums. You claim that I was wrong and I refused to see that, I admitted what I was wrong about, putting in a BTC value when there was none. I corrected that.

What ensued after was corersion against me and others in an attempt to force me to change my trust rating. ARMIS was in fact only there to harass me in my single outlet for trading on the forum. He initiated this conflict. He claims he deleted his posts but he only deleted one then began posting again. He deleted all his posts after I left him a trust rating to make it look like I was overreacting and that he actually stopped posting. If you read my quotes of him you can see he continued. He also deleted several taunting insulting posts from his own thread again to make himself appear like a victim in this and not a perpetrator. He has since them posted in at least 5 of my other marketplace ops accusing me of being "untrustworthy" in an attempt to slander me for giving him negative trust. Also him changing his signature to slander me also was clearly another escalation as well.

No one is acknowledging here the fact that he began this and escalated it at every point of the way. This is why I am being "stubborn", because I admitted to the mistakes I made, but that wasn't enough you had to punish me punitively for defending myself when the moderators refused to do so even when repeatedly requested. I didn't just attack this user for no reason. He was actively slandering me in my marketplace ops directly inhibiting my ability to trade in the only section I am permitted to. He has the freedom to criticize me everywhere on the forum. He also believes he also has the right to harass me and interfere with my marketplace posts dedicated exclusively to trading for his own personal entertainment.

This wasn't me trying to "blackmail" or oppress this user in some way. All I was demanding was to be restored to my original state BEFORE he started this conflict with me. I never demanded he be silenced or be unable to slander me anywhere else on the forum he likes. He is taking my ability to speak from me then claiming I am doing the same to him because I took action against him. My feedback was legitimate once corrected. I pointed out his harassment, and that is what it was for. Badbear for example accuses me of leaving negative trust frivolously and that I am some how abusing it for using it like it was intended, to warn others of problematic users, yet his trust list contains people who use the feedback system in EXACTLY the same way, and he excuses it. I am accused of participating in an "old boys club" while the real old buys club uses me as a convenient scapegoat so they can further excuse the abuses of their buddies.

I have seen the moderators and staff here have whole threads dedicated to harassing a minor (atlas), for no other reason than they found him annoying. I pointed out that it was a bit excessive and my post was removed. I then posted that anyone's posts not critical of atlas were being deleted so they banned me. You people have no right to talk to me about being aggressive and abusing users. It is a daily activity for staff here. Meanwhile this troll comes along and manipulates the situation and cries like he is being oppressed and the staff lick it up because it is a easy way to roll out and justify trust upgrades and cover for the actual abusers of the trust system, their buddies. I imagine the next step will be that you will retroactively claim my feedback is now invalid because I have other options with the updates. That's a convenient backdoor way for punitive action then forcing me to remove my feedback anyway because you changed the rules after it was left  

You are always talking about how you don't moderate feedback, but clearly you do, only thru coercion and threats of trust removal. This isn't a forum trust network. It is the Theymos trust network, and he demands everyone in his harem does what he decides. There is no posting of clear rules for trust ratings, and even if there were they are being selectively enforced to cover for the ACTUAL repeated abuse of trust from people in his trust list which he conveniently seems to not see. Then I come along and make a single infraction of these unwritten rules, correct the mistake in posting the trust, but refuse to submit to their threats for removing it completely because Armis instigated this and refuses to reciprocate with removing his slander of me and I am punitively punished. Not only by being removed by from the trust but because Armis still has slanderous posts in my marketplace threads regardless of how many times he claims he deleted them. He had no intent of leaving me to trade in peace, or to even engage in trading activity. If you actually read the posts of his I quoted you can see he is simply there to entertain himself at the expense of my ability to trade.

 I can't just take my existing years old threads with tons of good customer feedback, answers to questions, and other valuable content and make it self moderated, otherwise I would and none of this would have happened to begin with. My only option within the forum architecture left was either to leave a negative rating, or simply suffer damage of my ability to trade and speak freely here without being drown out by a 4chan like atmosphere.

The marketplace is so overrun with trolling I can't even sell items at cost without people claiming I am being unfair just as pretext to start an argument and make more accusations. This is exactly what Armis was doing to me, and I told him repeatedly to leave my thread and he refused. He CLAIMS he deleted his posts, but he deleted only his first post, then jumped right back in to start harassing again when others joined in emboldened by his first post. I attempted reports to moderators many times but all of my requests for assistance were ignored. He later deleted his other posts in my now closed thread (now reopened as a self moderated thread) after I left him negative feedback to try to appear reconciliatory and victimized after he had repercussions from me.

If trusted users aren't free to leave trust ratings that they decide on what is the point of the trust network? Also if the point of the trust network is to help direct people to honest traders, what is the point of removing me from the trust if I have been a model of a legitimate trader here? You say I was abusing the system for ONE trust rating left when users regularly hand out DOZENS here, even from users on the default trust list, for nothing more than a guess or because they were annoyed. All you are doing is EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Blackmailing me into doing and saying what you want.

[jrretirement]

Disappointing that the staff have chosen to basically shit on a guy who has done a lot to make the trading and trust system within this site a credible entity.

Regardless of circumstance I think this has been handled poorly by both sides of the street!

Seems as if the Staff including those who aren't so active but have major control have used this a vessel to demonstrate their power and in doing so have hung a loyal user out to dry for a moment or two of annoyance on his behalf, which is arguably justified in some respects. Surely those in control could have approached Tecshare privately and said "hey man we can't have this, shut it down". Instead of forcing others to do your dirty work for you, which has occurred.

The management of this site was always kept in high regards by myself as they didn't allow this kind of shit from escalating. One wonders why this has now been allowed to occur. Seems like a good opportunity to push some new site features perhaps or maybe just show you can, and will flex your muscles??  

Ban me if you like I don't care, but I'm sure when you read this YOU will know I'm right in what i say.

[deluxeCITY]

Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)

[jrretirement]

Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)

49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?

[redsn0w]

#TECSHARE

now you're still a trustworthy person , but you're not anymore in the defaultTrust list and this is not a real problem .

Good luck with your future deal.

[deluxeCITY]

Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)

49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?

Your account (just like every other account) at one point only had 49 posts, and this is not evidence that I am just a "shell".

Unless you can dispute any of the facts/arguments that I have presented with facts then the fact that you think I am a "shell" does not matter.

You need to remember not to believe what someone says simply because of their rank, but should read what they are saying to judge if what they are saying is credible or not