VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position

[TECSHARE]

There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.

Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again:

You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community:

That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me.

Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza.

The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT.

Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September.

I am not manufacturing anything. Your continual accusations are based on nothing. I was adding and removing users. Case closed! Again, this is proof of nothing other than the fact I was using the trust system like everyone else has a right to, unless of course you and the clown car disagree with those inclusions, then I am "manipulating" the trust. According to you, if I add some one, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions, if I remove some one it was because I didn't get an inclusion or for retaliation,  if some one adds me and I add them later, I only added them because they added me.

This is completely arbitrary and could be an accusation made against LITERALLY anyone actively using custom trust lists. These accusations also assume to know what my internal motivation and though process is. This is simply is a round about way for you and your red nosed friends to be able to dictate to me who is on my trust list. If you want to exclude me for this, go right ahead. Using negative ratings for this is not a valid use of the rating system. Your accusations are baseless and designed to retaliate outside the rules of the system because you don't think I should get to have any say in the system and I refuse to cave to the dictates of you and your pals and make choices based on what I think is right. This is about preventing me from using the system, not preventing manipulation of it. More people on the default trust makes it harder for your small group of friends to maintain control of it. You all know this, which is why that specific group of users who wants to maintain that unilateral power are working overtime to attack, slander, and abuse the trust system against me for doing nothing more than exercising my vote.

[TwitchySeal]

I am not manufacturing anything. Your continual accusations are based on nothing.

He posted more than enough evidence imo.

Claiming that the accusations are baseless over and over again doesn't make it true.

[TECSHARE]

I am not manufacturing anything. Your continual accusations are based on nothing.

He posted more than enough evidence imo.

Claiming that the accusations are baseless over and over again doesn't make it true.

In your "opinion" based on assumptions, based on even more assumptions used to leave a trust rating for something that should be addressed with exclusions, not negative ratings, even if it were true. Your opinion is meaningless as you have demonstrated your bias and willingness to use forum politics to attack me as an extension of your disagreement against political opinions you can't tolerate in the Politics & Society section.

[JaredKaragen]

Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September.

isn't the quoted portion of your analysis I left out above a very specific 100% unsubstantiated and highly speculative assumption?

I.E. you are painting a picture using an emotional/personal bias/presumption; rather than showing an actual clear chain of evidence that proves a fact instead of merely suggesting a possibility that lies buried in a sea of bullshit being thrown around between you guys.


Try and make it so that people not knee deep in this for so many years can easily and fully see the accusations being truth; not just assumptions or blank accusations based on the feelings of Betas.      

That quote you rely on is very muddy water for sure; as an outsider:   I see correlation absent of causation... I.E. assumption.

How would you like it if you were thrown in prison or deported because someone assumed something about you?

Example of a scenario for a red trust I have personally given:
The last dev I red tagged was because he was part of a dev team/project that screwed a bunch of investors, and did not put ANY effort into fulfilling those promises from what I can tell after over 30 min of looking, or even trying to vindicate himself from the catastrophe by trying to get a hold of the persons responsible on the project, or anything public even close to that notion.    To me this was a clean cut of someone who needs a red tag, because others may be ripped off by something he is attached to in the future.  Logic wins.

His idea of "fixing" the possibility for others to be screwed (having me remove my neg flag) is to plead with me to join him on some random telegram or some other crazy places to try and convince me he is a good guy.     If he truly was not connected with the dishonesty, or any of the like... there would be a whole chain of public posts and words from him about trying to help people find the ones responsible for the theft/lies, hand out contact info, etc etc etc.... not just stay silent and all the sudden wonder why you would get such a mark on your profile after working as a dev for a project that kept promising the moon but never fulfilled any promises.    This is why he still had red trust from ME.

All he needed to do was point me towards specific posts where he actively attempted to be one of the screwed parties in some very sincere and honest ways.....    But so far:  nothing but him trying to convince me to go out of my way to jump through his hoops (random telegram channels, etc).     Nope.  That is never gonna happen.    
All it would have taken is SINCERITY in ANY of his dealings since to be obvious and no complaints of trusted/high rank members (as per above) and it would have thrown my trust tag into question instantly.... maybe he got screwed by getting hired in to work on x portion of the project.


To end:  
I see nothing obvious here in what you guys accuse TEC of.    seriously.

Convince me.... with logic.... its not hard.

Leave emotion at the door.  It has no power in the world of logical analysis.

[nutildah]

There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.

Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again:

You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community:

That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me.

Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza.

The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT.

Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September.

I am not manufacturing anything.

You did though. You clearly lied about the timing of your intervention with the Turkish community flags issue, making up a story about how it preceded your adding them to your trust list. It did not.

Let's spell it out again. Your first involvement with the flag issue was on September 6th. You started adding Turkish members over a month prior to this event.



You had included Turkish users

bobita
Matthias9515
PHI1618
by rallier (later excluded)

weeks prior to September 6th.

Sometime between August 31st and September 7th, you added

Vispilio
Kalemder*

Let's say you added these 2 members on September 7th, moments/hours after they withdrew their support for the flag against Timelord, and moments/hours before Loyce uploaded that week's trust list. Is that a good reason to include these members in your trust list? All because they withdrew support for a bullshit, retaliatory flag, created by them? Not exactly a great reason to change your trust list IMO.

What's far more likely is you stepped in briefly to help out your newfound friends from incorrectly using the new flag system, which admittedly was a good thing to do, regardless of the circumstances. And thanks to them and a few Russians which you included because people you disagree with have them excluded, you are currently back on DT1, so congratulations, enjoy it while it lasts.

*Edit: Vispilio was the only Turkish member you added after Loyce's update on 9/7:

Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP:


7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2)
7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier

7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1)

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)

8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2)
8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM   bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM   Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0)

9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM   TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2)
9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM   mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

*became DT1 at this time

As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite:

(sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite
5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM   WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't.

I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now.

You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists.

Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward.

**2nd edit. In TECSHARE's own words:

You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.

None of these are great reasons for someone to be including members into their trust list, but admittedly that's just my opinion.

[TECSHARE]

There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.

Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again:

You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community:

That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me.

Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza.

The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT.

Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September.

I am not manufacturing anything.

You did though. You clearly lied about the timing of your intervention with the Turkish community flags issue, making up a story about how it preceded your adding them to your trust list. It did not.

Let's spell it out again. Your first involvement with the flag issue was on September 6th. You started adding Turkish members over a month prior to this event.

[img  width=500]https://i.imgflip.com/3r3xqr.jpg[/img]

You had included Turkish users

bobita
Matthias9515
PHI1618
by rallier (later excluded)

weeks prior to September 6th.

Sometime between August 31st and September 7th, you added

Vispilio
Kalemder*

Let's say you added these 2 members on September 7th, moments/hours after they withdrew their support for the flag against Timelord, and moments/hours before Loyce uploaded that week's trust list. Is that a good reason to include these members in your trust list? All because they withdrew support for a bullshit, retaliatory flag, created by them? Not exactly a great reason to change your trust list IMO.

What's far more likely is you stepped in briefly to help out your newfound friends from incorrectly using the new flag system, which admittedly was a good thing to do, regardless of the circumstances. And thanks to them and a few Russians which you included because people you disagree with have them excluded, you are currently back on DT1, so congratulations, enjoy it while it lasts.

*Edit: Vispilio was the only Turkish member you added after Loyce's update on 9/7:

Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP:


7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2)
7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier

7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1)

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)

8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2)
8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM   bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM   Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0)

9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM   TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2)
9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM   mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

*became DT1 at this time

As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite:

(sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite
5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM   WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't.

I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now.

You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists.

Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward.

**2nd edit. In TECSHARE's own words:

You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.

None of these are great reasons for someone to be including members into their trust list, but admittedly that's just my opinion.

TL;DR

"I don't like who you decided to add, so I am going to make up a plausible but unsubstantiated accusation to punish you for it."

So now you decide for me now what is a good reason to add people? This justifies the use of a negative rating how? Also, BTW, I never said those were the exclusive reasons I added them, I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event, but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of  "manufacturing" reasons. I think you are "manufacturing" yourself, lots of bullshit to serve your personal vendettas. Also notice you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party, why is that Nutilduuuh? Is it because you can't simply just accuse them of things and pretend as if they are trying to cover something up as your sole form of argument?

P.S. - AMAZIN'!

[nutildah]

So now you decide for me now what is a good reason to add people? This justifies the use of a negative rating how? Also, BTW, I never said those were the exclusive reasons I added them, I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event, but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of  "manufacturing" reasons. I think you are "manufacturing" yourself, lots of bullshit to serve your personal vendettas. Also notice you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party, why is that Nutilduuuh? Is it because you can't simply just accuse them of things and pretend as if they are trying to cover something up as your sole form of argument?

P.S. - AMAZIN'!

TL;DR

"I got caught manipulating the trust system and then lying about it, so let me shift the argument to a personal one."

I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event

Where? From what I can see you had zero public interaction with them before Sept 6th. But I could be mistaken, so please feel free to point out what I missed.

but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of  "manufacturing" reasons

I didn't accuse you of manufacturing "reasons," I accused you of manufacturing a timeline, which you did.

you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party

While I don't consider their tone to be "neutral," I did address their request in my following post.

[TECSHARE]

So now you decide for me now what is a good reason to add people? This justifies the use of a negative rating how? Also, BTW, I never said those were the exclusive reasons I added them, I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event, but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of  "manufacturing" reasons. I think you are "manufacturing" yourself, lots of bullshit to serve your personal vendettas. Also notice you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party, why is that Nutilduuuh? Is it because you can't simply just accuse them of things and pretend as if they are trying to cover something up as your sole form of argument?

P.S. - AMAZIN'!

TL;DR

"I got caught manipulating the trust system and then lying about it, so let me shift the argument to a personal one."

I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event

Where? From what I can see you had zero public interaction with them before Sept 6th. But I could be mistaken, so please feel free to point out what I missed.

but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of  "manufacturing" reasons

I didn't accuse you of manufacturing "reasons," I accused you of manufacturing a timeline, which you did.

you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party

While I don't consider their tone to be "neutral," I did address their request in my following post.

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

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

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

[nutildah]

In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to present a false order of events.

FTFY.

You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands

Not at all. You have every much a right to include who you want as I do to assume you were fishing for reciprocal inclusions.

or else I am "manufacturing timelines".

Again, no. The fact that you were presenting events out of order is why you were manufacturing timelines.

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

Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list.

Okay. You are again changing the story from what you said months earlier:

You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.

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

BTW, I don't necessarily agree with Vod's negative rating for you over this issue. I think you are quite capable of delivering packages and that you aren't a scammer. However, I do think its a reason why you shouldn't be in DT.

[TECSHARE]

In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to present a false order of events.

FTFY.

You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands

Not at all. You have every much a right to include who you want as I do to assume you were fishing for reciprocal inclusions.

or else I am "manufacturing timelines".

Again, no. The fact that you were presenting events out of order is why you were manufacturing timelines.

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

Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list.

Okay. You are again changing the story from what you said months earlier:

You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.

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

BTW, I don't necessarily agree with Vod's negative rating for you over this issue. I think you are quite capable of delivering packages and that you aren't a scammer. However, I do think its a reason why you shouldn't be in DT.

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

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

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

[JaredKaragen]

*snip*
But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were *snip*

Finally a bit of direct honest analysis from someone else......

As an outsider... its maddening to see how this is progressing.

[TwitchySeal]

*snip*
But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were *snip*

Finally a bit of direct honest analysis from someone else......

As an outsider... its maddening to see how this is progressing.

Don't be maddened.  It's impossible to prove pretty much anything if you're looking at it in absolute terms (which TECSHARE does on a regular basis when it's to his benefit).  

Nearly every scam that's ever happened on this forum lacks the evidence to prove that there is a 0.0% chance that the scammer is innocent.

Same goes for pretty much every crime that involves the internet or computers.

The same goes for every criminal who was convicted based on finger prints or DNA.

Don't fall for the 'circumstantial evidence is worthless. nothing more than baseless speculation'.  Circumstantial evidence is pretty much all we have for anything on a forum like this.  If we decided to just ignore it, scammers would be able to get away with anything.

If you're just looking for 100% proof of anything in these situations, you'll never find it.  The best you can do is look at the evidence, consciously be as objective as possible and make up your own mind.  Most likely some will disagree with your opinion.  That's not a bad thing.

[Vod]

As an outsider... its maddening to see how this is progressing.

I feel you man.  Techy realized why his feedback on me was abusive but his ego will not allow his brain to put the pieces together, nor will it let him ask for help.  :/

[TECSHARE]

As an outsider... its maddening to see how this is progressing.

I feel you man.  Techy realized why his feedback on me was abusive but his ego will not allow his brain to put the pieces together, nor will it let him ask for help.  :/

What you did was a felony Vod, and also something other users get a permanent instaban for doing just what you did. Still waiting for you to quote any substantiation for any of the claims you have made in your negative ratings against me. This thread is replete with examples of you abusing the trust system against me in the past in an attempt to extort me into silencing my criticisms of your behavior. This time is no different, it is just an extension of your years of obsession with me.

*snip*
But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were *snip*

Finally a bit of direct honest analysis from someone else......

As an outsider... its maddening to see how this is progressing.

Don't be maddened.  It's impossible to prove pretty much anything if you're looking at it in absolute terms (which TECSHARE does on a regular basis when it's to his benefit).  

Nearly every scam that's ever happened on this forum lacks the evidence to prove that there is a 0.0% chance that the scammer is innocent.

Same goes for pretty much every crime that involves the internet or computers.

The same goes for every criminal who was convicted based on finger prints or DNA.

Don't fall for the 'circumstantial evidence is worthless. nothing more than baseless speculation'.  Circumstantial evidence is pretty much all we have for anything on a forum like this.  If we decided to just ignore it, scammers would be able to get away with anything.

If you're just looking for 100% proof of anything in these situations, you'll never find it.  The best you can do is look at the evidence, consciously be as objective as possible and make up your own mind.  Most likely some will disagree with your opinion.  That's not a bad thing.

Absolute horse shit. You have ZERO evidence, not even circumstantial. Everything presented relies on assumptions and pretending to know what my state of mind was. That coming from a group of people with clearly documented bias and plenty of past history of antagonism against me is nothing but worthless fodder to serve petty vendettas.

Furthermore there is plenty of motivation for the people who gate keep the default trust to try to discredit me, because what I am advocating for disables their ability to unilaterally control the trust system, punish their critics free of repercussions, and protect them from being penalized with in it for their own illicit activities by offering mutual protection as a small uniform voting block.

If we are talking about circumstantial evidence, I have FAR MORE evidence that the trust system is being abuse against me to serve personal vendettas and protection of control of the trust system than you do that I was ever abusing it in any way. Almost without exception, everyone who currently has left me negative ratings has a history of using them abusively and being forced to remove them in the past because the community judged them to be baseless. That is more solid than your stacks of assumptions and claims to have the ability to read my mind.

Again, what this boils down to is people shouldn't be tagging based on opinions or disagreeing with opinions, which is exactly what all this is. These kind of ratings are totally indistinguishable from trust system abuse, which is exactly the point of doing it under such pretenses, so you can maintain a plausible denial that this is abuse, while never presenting any actual evidence.

[Vod]

What you did was a felony Vod

Copy/pasting public info on a private board?  Don't think so Techy.

My trust on you starts with
Mentally ill stalker who will...

You complain it is trust abuse.

These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents...

Your trust on me starts with
Mentally ill stalker who will...

[TECSHARE]

What you did was a felony Vod

Copy/pasting public info on a private board?  Don't think so Techy.

My trust on you starts with
Mentally ill stalker who will...

You complain it is trust abuse.

These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents...

Your trust on me starts with
Mentally ill stalker who will...

I have asked many times, if I remove the reference to your obvious mental illness and replace the rating with one exclusively about your inexcusable doxing activities, will you then consider the rating valid?

...What Vod did was in fact illegal.

"18 U.S. Code § 2261A provides:

    “Whoever—

    (2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
    (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
    (B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …

    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”"

As many have already pointed out, he was well known to be a forum treasurer, holding a significant amount of funds, announcing his private residence in public could quite reasonably be considered putting him at significant risk. This combined with Vod's clear attempt to harass and intimidate puts his actions well within the realm of this statute.

What you did was a crime under this statute.

[Vod]

What you did was a crime under this statute.

You stating I did something I didn't is also as crime. 

You need to find someone to charge and convict me.

[JaredKaragen]

What you did was a crime under this statute.

You stating I did something I didn't is also as crime. 

You need to find someone to charge and convict me.

I believe he was providing the reality that maliciously doxing or threatening people;  is illegal via the above federal statute....



FYI:  there are laws you may not even know of.  Example: even if you aren't in California; it is illegal to record a private conversation without both parties consent if one of those persons is in California....   most Californians don't even know this.



But a real answer instead of snarky comments goes a long way in this world...  I believe he is referencing the multiple drunken doxing threats, and if i'm also not mistaken, one or two actual instances of doxing that were redacted.




Act like a grown-up; not a child.

[Vod]

Show me your law degrees guys, or stop playing pretend internet lawyer.  

How many years could one get for "doxing"?

 

[TwitchySeal]

  “Whoever—

    (2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
    (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
    (B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …

    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”"

   “Whoever— with the intent to intimidate another person, uses any interactive computer service to engage in a course of conduct that attempts to cause substantial emotional distress to a person shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title."

^^So Trolling

FYI:  there are laws you may not even know of.  Example: even if you aren't in California; it is illegal to record a private conversation without both parties consent if one of those persons is in California....   most Californians don't even know this.

It's also illegal in California to eat a frog that died in a frog jumping contest.