REMOVE NUBBINS FROM THE DEFAULT TRUST LIST FOR REPEATED TRUST ABUSE

[TECSHARE]

Nubbins feels it is appropriate to use his position on the default trust list to attempt to intimidate and silence people for the grievous crime of disagreeing with his opinions/actions in public. This week he has been systematically destroying the trust ratings of several people who disagree with his use of mob action, and also speak up in support of the user WoodCollector. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=392383
Apparently a member of the staff also decided to join in and BAN several of these users for supporting WoodCollector's position and deleted their comments.


Here is a list of his most recent left negative trust ratings:

TECSHARE:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Use caution when trusting this user's judgment"
Reference : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.msg10257046#msg10257046
(the reference is basically him commenting about me, a bit of circular logic and not at all specific)


SodaWarz:
2015-01-21   0.00000000 "Sock. Shill."
Reference : NONE
(Other users such as Mitchełł, jonald_fyookball, BadBear, danielpbarron, & smoothie he is a "provable alt of Woodcollector" or that he is "supporting a scam" simply because he does not agree with their opinions and supports WoodCollector's stated position. I see no actual evidence anywhere for this, just speculation, accusations and mob attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with their speculation.)


poisenrang:
2015-01-23      0.00000000 "Paid shill, do not trust"
Reference : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=864472.msg10237014#msg10237014
(this rating is apparently for posting a single sentence. "WOAHH!!! this piece is so nice! carved so well!")


TerraHasher:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Shill / Scammer"
Reference: NONE
(Other users such as jonald_fyookball, BadBear, Rawted, Somekindabitcoin, smoothie, Rawted again, & danielpbarron  joined in on the feedback abuse, usually citing "provable alt of Woodcollector" or some other accusation of him being a sock puppet or shill. I would love to hear about all this "proof" Badbear has. I suspect it consists of him accepting the speculations of Nubbins and others in his mob clique, and therefore not proof of anything. I have heard the staff here say many times it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove if some one is using an alternate account. This is quite convenient for accusations for use in mob attacks.)


ukcrypto:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Confirmed sock or moron, take your pick"
Reference: NONE
(This is an actual satisfied customer of Woodcollector's. I see now that leaving negative trust for "morons" is now an acceptable standard for a trust rating. I guess half of the users on this forum should have negative tags then.  Another user, jonald_fyookball also joined in on this feedback abuse stating  in his negative trust rating "probably an alt of woodcollector." )


bitspill:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "WARNING: User may be unable to parse simple English text. Exercise caution."
Reference: NONE
(This user was also speaking in support of Woodcollector. Nubbins left a negative at first but then modified it to a neutral. The way that this is worded seems more like an attempt at an insult than any actual information about WHY he left the negative/neutral rating.)


It seems to me there is a very clear pattern of a small handful of closely associated individuals choosing to systematically tarnish the reputation of honest users here simply for having the audacity to disagree with them, as an attempt to intimidate them into silence. I must say I am also a bit shocked that staff would go as far as banning several of these people to prevent them from speaking (including deleted comments). It is convenient that all of these accusations of sock puppeting and shills can nether be proven or disproven. Additionally it has never been considered "scamming" to use an alt, especially when they person they claim they are sock puppeting for is not even proven a scammer himself. This is clearly a coordinated attempt to silence discussion on the topic by a bunch of Nubbin's buddies.

These accusations are clearly spurious and just an attempt to silence any debate on the topic by intimidating and "discrediting" anyone who dares to support Woodcollector's narrative. Nubbins and his mob have done nothing but spew SPECULATION and have never at ANY POINT presented any substantial fact based evidence that Woodcutter, or any of the other individuals he attacked by abusing the trust system ever did anything wrong. Again, it is all 100% speculation. Theories and speculation are not equivalent to proof. As a result of this I am requesting Nubbins be removed from the default trust list (level 2). Canaryinthemine please remove this yet another example of abusive users from your trust list.

Video proof Woodcollector does in fact carve his peices without a laser engraver or a CNC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.0;all
Nubbins's original accusation thread (now shockingly locked): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.0;all
Thread opened by Woodcollector in the interim after Nubbins locked his thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931109.20

[1714930940]

1714930940

[1714930940]

1714930940

[1714930940]

1714930940

[BadBear]

SodaWarz:
2015-01-21   0.00000000 "Sock. Shill."
Reference : NONE
(Other users such as Mitchełł, jonald_fyookball, BadBear, danielpbarron, & smoothie he is a "provable alt of Woodcollector" or that he is "supporting a scam" simply because he does not agree with their opinions and supports WoodCollector's stated position. I see no actual evidence anywhere for this, just speculation, accusations and mob attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with their speculation.)

TerraHasher:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Shill / Scammer"
Reference: NONE
(Other users such as jonald_fyookball, BadBear, Rawted, Somekindabitcoin, smoothie, Rawted again, & danielpbarron  joined in on the feedback abuse, usually citing "provable alt of Woodcollector" or some other accusation of him being a sock puppet or shill. I would love to hear about all this "proof" Badbear has. I suspect it consists of him accepting the speculations of Nubbins and others in his mob clique, and therefore not proof of anything. I have heard the staff here say many times it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove if some one is using an alternate account. This is quite convenient for accusations for use in mob attacks.)

No, I have fairly conclusive proof. Whether you believe me or not is of no concern to me.

[Quickseller]

I would have to agree with TECSHARE's general argument that Nubbins should be removed from default trust list.

From what I could tell during the entire Woodcollector debate was that anyone who spoke in support of Woodcollector or questioned anyone who was giving "evidence" or "testimony" regarding the potential legitimacy of Woodcollector was almost always given negative trust from Nubbins.

There was even one rating (that he has since removed) that he gave someone with a comment of "harassment" and a reference link  to a post in the original scam accusation thread. I skimmed through the thread and was unable to locate what I think the referenced post was (it could have been deleted, it could have actually been in one of the other threads, or I could have missed it), however it was something along the lines of asking nubbins to provide video proof of his work/business in a similar way that nubbins was asking Woodcollector for proof. This may have been one of the people that BadBear tagged as being an alt of Woodcollector (really not sure) however BadBear has access to a lot more information then Nubbins does, and the negative trust seems to have been left almost immediately after the post in question (making it unlikely he received any actual evidence of them being alts of Woodcollector). There is a very big difference between leaving negative feedback for someone based on speculation (and being right) and leaving negative feedback based on facts you have personal knowledge of.

I would say that what Nubbins was doing was essentially intimidating people into agree with him (or at the very least intimidating people against disagreeing with him). This resulted in people almost blindly agreeing with nubbins more or less the entire time. This is despite that there was varying levels of evidence against Woodcollector (and evidence that Woodcollector was "innocent") over the past several days.

My impression is that nubbins more or less "bused" Woodcollector of scamming via speculation and was able to essentially catch Woodcollector in lies in his response plus the fact that Woodcollector was using likely alts to further his cause. (although the allegations are still somewhat up for debate, as well as the fact that Woodcollector was actually scamming). The original claims against Woodcollector now are very different then what they were when the scam accusation was first opened.

[TECSHARE]

SodaWarz:
2015-01-21   0.00000000 "Sock. Shill."
Reference : NONE
(Other users such as Mitchełł, jonald_fyookball, BadBear, danielpbarron, & smoothie he is a "provable alt of Woodcollector" or that he is "supporting a scam" simply because he does not agree with their opinions and supports WoodCollector's stated position. I see no actual evidence anywhere for this, just speculation, accusations and mob attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with their speculation.)

TerraHasher:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Shill / Scammer"
Reference: NONE
(Other users such as jonald_fyookball, BadBear, Rawted, Somekindabitcoin, smoothie, Rawted again, & danielpbarron  joined in on the feedback abuse, usually citing "provable alt of Woodcollector" or some other accusation of him being a sock puppet or shill. I would love to hear about all this "proof" Badbear has. I suspect it consists of him accepting the speculations of Nubbins and others in his mob clique, and therefore not proof of anything. I have heard the staff here say many times it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove if some one is using an alternate account. This is quite convenient for accusations for use in mob attacks.)

No, I have fairly conclusive proof. Whether you believe me or not is of no concern to me.

Considering that this effects quite a few people, I think this is way beyond just me believing you. This is especially true considering that this wave of negative feedback is completely reliant on the premise that WoodCollector is a "scammer". Many peoples reputations have been destroyed over this alleged scammer, and once more it is not at all clear WoodCollector is a scammer. All I have seen presented against him is 100% speculative with no solid evidence. Is there any specific reason why you can't release this "proof"? If you are unwilling to disclose it really it is nothing more than just another accusation. Given the fact that it was likely you that banned several of the people here involved which you also left negative feedback for, I would think it would be prudent for you to share your evidence. Right now it looks like you are just another part of the mob action to silence people from speaking out about the subject.

The original claims against Woodcollector now are very different then what they were when the scam accusation was first opened.

Shifting standards are always a pretty strong indicator of a witch hunt or a hit job IMO. Suddenly they are scrambling to come up with new reasons why WoodCollector is a "scammer".

[nubbins]

The neat thing about Trust is that not everybody understands what it really is, or how it really works.

Let's take my trust page, for example. There are several red negative reviews of me under the "untrusted feedback" section. Ostensibly, this would be a Bad Thing, because Trust is a points-based system and more points equals more trust, right? Wrong.

In fact, Trust is not a points-based system, but a way of linking reputations across a network of people. Thusly, people can see the negative reviews that have been left for me, check the reference links, see the trust of the users who left those reviews, check THEIR reference links, etc. This is very powerful, because it allows you to view the broad behavioural strokes of everyone involved in the situation.

I am, in fact, not affected in any fashion by the negative reviews left on my profile, because any user who views them is able to uncover a vast amount of information surrounding the reviews in question, as well as a vast amount of information surrounding my own behaviour on this forum, right back to the start, and come to their own conclusions.

Those who have received negative ratings from me should, if they understand the Trust system and its use, be wholly unconcerned if my accusations are baseless, and vocally critical if they are true.

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system  

[smoothie]

Wow more crying and whining by TECSHARE.

Surprising? Not really.

Did you and Goat grow up together? You both appear to operate in the same manner.

 

[TECSHARE]

The neat thing about Trust is that not everybody understands what it really is, or how it really works.

Let's take my trust page, for example. There are several red negative reviews of me under the "untrusted feedback" section. Ostensibly, this would be a Bad Thing, because Trust is a points-based system and more points equals more trust, right? Wrong.

In fact, Trust is not a points-based system, but a way of linking reputations across a network of people. Thusly, people can see the negative reviews that have been left for me, check the reference links, see the trust of the users who left those reviews, check THEIR reference links, etc. This is very powerful, because it allows you to view the broad behavioural strokes of everyone involved in the situation.

I am, in fact, not affected in any fashion by the negative reviews left on my profile, because any user who views them is able to uncover a vast amount of information surrounding the reviews in question, as well as a vast amount of information surrounding my own behaviour on this forum, right back to the start, and come to their own conclusions.

Those who have received negative ratings from me should, if they understand the Trust system and its use, be wholly unconcerned if my accusations are baseless, and vocally critical if they are true.

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system  

Your logic is glaringly absent, and your sales pitch on why this is not a big deal is completely warped. I don't think you are fooling anyone. You have demonstrated lack of self control, willingness to abuse trust for personal gain, unwillingness to admit your mistakes, willingness to abuse the trust system multiple times, willingness to rally mobs without any chance for the accused to present their own evidence, extreme childishness, and blatant disregard for the community, the forum, and its users. Its time for you to go.

[Quickseller]

SodaWarz:
2015-01-21   0.00000000 "Sock. Shill."
Reference : NONE
(Other users such as Mitchełł, jonald_fyookball, BadBear, danielpbarron, & smoothie he is a "provable alt of Woodcollector" or that he is "supporting a scam" simply because he does not agree with their opinions and supports WoodCollector's stated position. I see no actual evidence anywhere for this, just speculation, accusations and mob attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with their speculation.)

TerraHasher:
2015-01-25   0.00000000 "Shill / Scammer"
Reference: NONE
(Other users such as jonald_fyookball, BadBear, Rawted, Somekindabitcoin, smoothie, Rawted again, & danielpbarron  joined in on the feedback abuse, usually citing "provable alt of Woodcollector" or some other accusation of him being a sock puppet or shill. I would love to hear about all this "proof" Badbear has. I suspect it consists of him accepting the speculations of Nubbins and others in his mob clique, and therefore not proof of anything. I have heard the staff here say many times it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove if some one is using an alternate account. This is quite convenient for accusations for use in mob attacks.)

No, I have fairly conclusive proof. Whether you believe me or not is of no concern to me.

Considering that this effects quite a few people, I think this is way beyond just me believing you. This is especially true considering that this wave of negative feedback is completely reliant on the premise that WoodCollector is a "scammer". Many peoples reputations have been destroyed over this alleged scammer, and once more it is not at all clear WoodCollector is a scammer. All I have seen presented against him is 100% speculative with no solid evidence. Is there any specific reason why you can't release this "proof"? If you are unwilling to disclose it really it is nothing more than just another accusation. Given the fact that it was likely you that banned several of the people here involved which you also left negative feedback for, I would think it would be prudent for you to share your evidence. Right now it looks like you are just another part of the mob action to silence people from speaking out about the subject.

The reason he should not give his proof is because doing so would reveal what other scammers can do in the future to avoid this kind of detection. Withholding proof is the lesser of two evils.
The others who have left negative feedback for the above potential alts should remove it if they are only relying on BadBear's word. If they have seen such evidence or have seen other different proof then the ratings would be appropriate. If they trust BadBear's word about the ratings then they should add BadBear to their trust list so anyone that trusts them will also trust BadBear's ratings (if their trust depth is set deep enough). This is one drawback of not providing such proof as it limits the number of appropriate negative feedback ratings of scammer alts

[BadBear]

Those who have received negative ratings from me should, if they understand the Trust system and its use, be wholly unconcerned if my accusations are baseless, and vocally critical if they are true.

Being in the default trust network means your feedback is artificially given higher weight than others, so yes it is concerning if the accusations are baseless.

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system  

Removing someone from his trust list is not abusing anything.

[Quickseller]

I am, in fact, not affected in any fashion by the negative reviews left on my profile, because any user who views them is able to uncover a vast amount of information surrounding the reviews in question, as well as a vast amount of information surrounding my own behaviour on this forum, right back to the start, and come to their own conclusions.

This is because you have not received any negative ratings from anyone on the default trust list. They are "untrusted"

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system 

I don't think you understand how the trust system works. You are not on default trust list because CITM gave you positive feedback, you are on it because he added you to his trust list. The two are suppose to be very different and distinct actions (however for CITM they are one and the same)

[nubbins]

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system  

Removing someone from his trust list is not abusing anything.

Fair enough, that was cheeky.

Those who have received negative ratings from me should, if they understand the Trust system and its use, be wholly unconcerned if my accusations are baseless, and vocally critical if they are true.

Being in the default trust network means your feedback is artificially given higher weight than others, so yes it is concerning if the accusations are baseless.

Incidentally, I just realized that the negative feedback I left for TECSHARE actually *removed* him from the default trust list.

I guess that's why we're all in this thread...

I'm going to sit back and see what everyone has to say about this, but I'd like to say that I will be saddened and disappointed if I'm forced to remove any of the ratings I've left other users as a condition of remaining in the Default Trust list.

[koshgel]

Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)

The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.

I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed

[ABitNut]

Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)

The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.

I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed

I appreciate TECSHARE standing up for someone even though I disagree with them. All I think is this could / should have been done without all the mud slinging and anger.

Woodcollector seems a fraud if you ask me. The threads about them have shown they're misrepresenting their work. I don't see any direct need to remove anyone from the default trust list at this time.

[wunkbone]

Those who have received negative ratings from me should, if they understand the Trust system and its use, be wholly unconcerned if my accusations are baseless, and vocally critical if they are true.

Being in the default trust network means your feedback is artificially given higher weight than others, so yes it is concerning if the accusations are baseless.

Incidentally, I just realized that the negative feedback I left for TECSHARE actually *removed* him from the default trust list.

I guess that's why we're all in this thread...

I'm going to sit back and see what everyone has to say about this, but I'd like to say that I will be saddened and disappointed if I'm forced to remove any of the ratings I've left other users as a condition of remaining in the Default Trust list.

TECHSHARE was removed from default trust months ago (he complains about it all the time - his signature is even about this incident). You are in default trust because CanaryInTheMine added your name to this page. TECHSHARE is off of default trust because everyone that had previously added him to their list on the above page has removed him.

It is possible for a scammer (or someone with negative trust) to still be on default trust, although it is very rare this will happen.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)

The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.

I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed

Exactly. Negative feedback is if you think someone is a scammer, or that they are likely to scam. Negative feedback is not for "Use caution when trusting this user's judgement".

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

> "Shill or moron. Probably not a good idea to trust either way. Negative feedback left."

This isn't what negative feedback is for.

[wunkbone]

Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)

The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.

I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed

Exactly. Negative feedback is if you think someone is a scammer, or that they are likely to scam. Negative feedback is not for "Use caution when trusting this user's judgement".

It is apparent that Nubbins does not understand how the trust system works or it's intended uses.

It would probably even be a good idea to make people pass some kind of test/quiz before "officially" being on default trust

[BadBear]

I am, in fact, not affected in any fashion by the negative reviews left on my profile, because any user who views them is able to uncover a vast amount of information surrounding the reviews in question, as well as a vast amount of information surrounding my own behaviour on this forum, right back to the start, and come to their own conclusions.

This is because you have not received any negative ratings from anyone on the default trust list. They are "untrusted"

Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system 

I don't think you understand how the trust system works. You are not on default trust list because CITM gave you positive feedback, you are on it because he added you to his trust list. The two are suppose to be very different and distinct actions (however for CITM they are one and the same)

I missed that, along with the other post it's obvious he doesn't understand it, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse. I agree with koshgel.

Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)

The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.

I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed

[Blazr]

Exactly. Negative feedback is if you think someone is a scammer, or that they are likely to scam. Negative feedback is not for "Use caution when trusting this user's judgement".

You say that, yet you left nubbins this negative trust:
"Leaves inaccurate trust ratings (eg Bitspill), asbuses the trust system. "

[nubbins]

Good lord, please stay on topic and stop discussing wood in here.

Trust here is indeed significantly different from the OTC web of trust, as I've realized.

I feel as though there are some unspoken rules floating around here regarding when it is appropriate to leave negative or neutral feedback. Perhaps it would be useful to have some form of guidance as to when each is appropriate?

WC is a great example -- TECSHARE still thinks I do not have the proof to leave a negative rating against WC, but I of course think that I do.

I would not leave neutral feedback for a scammer, because if everyone only freaks out about the red/green under avatars like it seems, neutral feedback will never be read by the noobs it's supposed to protect.

If I leave negative feedback to warn noobs (so they'll see without clicking the Trust link, something foreign and new to noobs), the trust link goes red and people start making meta threads about me.

Maybe the solution is to keep the trust LINK but hide the automatic display of the SCORE under people's avatars? That way, people can still easily check trust, without having their initial perceptions tainted by what may be only one negative rating.

It seems like people think I give negative trust to those who disagree with me, but in fact, I gave negative trust to those who seemed duplicitous or otherwise suspicious in their words and actions (like the guy who ignored 10 pages of arguing to say "nice work!", or all the socks).

I left TECSHARE negative feedback because I felt he was acting in a manner that called the accuracy of his judgment into question. Given the several witch hunt threads TECSHARE seems to be running, I don't think this is unfair of me, and would be interested to hear disagreement on this point.

Is this page really a problem big enough to warrant a prosecution?