REMOVE NUBBINS FROM THE DEFAULT TRUST LIST FOR REPEATED TRUST ABUSE

[FattyMcButterpants]

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.

IMO a neutral feedback is more appropriate. Poor judgement doesn't mean untrustworthy. Someone who has 'poor judgement', throws tantrums can be trustworthy if they honors all their deals and keeps their word.

[1713852849]

1713852849

[1713852849]

1713852849

[1713852849]

1713852849

[1713852849]

1713852849

[1713852849]

1713852849

[nubbins]

You have demonstrated ... willingness to abuse trust for personal gain

What if they also slander you without evidence to back up their claims?

EDIT: This is just as serious an accusation as anything else being discussed here. I take my reputation seriously, and request you provide proof of me "demonstrating" willingness to abuse the forum for my personal gain. Without such proof, I'd like to ask the slanderous comment be removed.

[BadBear]

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.

IMO a neutral feedback is more appropriate. Poor judgement doesn't mean untrustworthy. Someone who has 'poor judgement', throws tantrums can be trustworthy if they honors all their deals and keeps their word.

Agreed.

You have demonstrated ... willingness to abuse trust for personal gain

What if they also slander you without evidence to back up their claims?

EDIT: This is just as serious an accusation as anything else being discussed here. I take my reputation seriously, and request you provide proof of me "demonstrating" willingness to abuse the forum for my personal gain. Without such proof, I'd like to ask the slanderous comment be removed.

You're deflecting. That was a response to undeserved negative feedback, saying it's now deserved because of the response to it is a failure in logic.

[nubbins]

You have demonstrated ... willingness to abuse trust for personal gain

What if they also slander you without evidence to back up their claims?

EDIT: This is just as serious an accusation as anything else being discussed here. I take my reputation seriously, and request you provide proof of me "demonstrating" willingness to abuse the forum for my personal gain. Without such proof, I'd like to ask the slanderous comment be removed.

You're deflecting. That was a response to undeserved negative feedback, saying it's now deserved because of the response to it is a failure in logic.

"Personal gain" is where the logic fails. I have nothing to personally gain by leaving TECSHARE a negative rating (he has purchased goods from me in the past!), nor do I have anything to personally gain by leaving negative ratings for socks and scammers. In fact, leaving negative ratings leaves one open to rating retaliation -- as has happened to me. I don't do it for kicks, and I don't do it to further my own dealings; this is why I take offence to the statement.

[nubbins]

Furthermore, I fully expected that I would lose business in the future as a result of this fiasco, but called out WC's scam regardless. Now I've got a bunch of negative ratings and hate threads, as I expected would happen. Not much of a personal gain.

[Lethn]

This kind of thing has me worried for future merchants more than anything, particularly me since I haven't even sold anything yet. Can I expect the same kind of foaming at the mouth back and forth responses from people who look at my work? While I think it's always good to keep an eye out for scammers and the vigilance of the majority of Bitcoin users is fantastic, letting a mob lynch anyone who sneezes funny is not only unfair on a lot of newbies also does set my paranoia off and makes me wonder what the people doing this have to gain?

Sure, you may get quite a few guys being dodgy fucks and get lucky, but what's going to happen when you pick on the wrong person? I hope Open Bazaar gets plenty of updates because I'm getting genuinely worried about this community, there's nothing worse than a violent mob that thinks they're infallible.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

And yet, when Vod negs me with the baseless accusation of my account being "possibly hacked" you don't exhibit the least bit of concern, much less remove his default trust.   

[nubbins]

This kind of thing has me worried for future merchants more than anything, particularly me since I haven't even sold anything yet. Can I expect the same kind of foaming at the mouth back and forth responses from people who look at my work? While I think it's always good to keep an eye out for scammers and the vigilance of the majority of Bitcoin users is fantastic, letting a mob lynch anyone who sneezes funny is not only unfair on a lot of newbies also does set my paranoia off and makes me wonder what the people doing this have to gain?

Sure, you may get quite a few guys being dodgy fucks and get lucky, but what's going to happen when you pick on the wrong person? I hope Open Bazaar gets plenty of updates because I'm getting genuinely worried about this community, there's nothing worse than a violent mob that thinks they're infallible.

I don't think you can expect any foaming unless you're acting in a highly scam-probable manner. Nobody's foamed at or mobbed me for trying to sell goods yet, but I heartily encourage people to ask hard questions if they feel something about the way I conduct business doesn't add up.

Why do people keep talking about mobs, anyway? I opened a thread, a bunch of people made conclusions and acted accordingly. You're making it seem like I went around knocking on doors trying to get people to join in.

What do I have to gain by calling scams?

What I have to gain is a marketplace where people can feel safe, which benefits me, as a seller.

If scams go unchecked, the forum turns into an unsafe place to do business, and I stop making money here.

If/when I pick on the wrong person, I'll eat my hat, like I said in relation to this whole WC fiasco.

[FattyMcButterpants]

"Personal gain" is where the logic fails. I have nothing to personally gain by leaving TECSHARE a negative rating (he has purchased goods from me in the past!), nor do I have anything to personally gain by leaving negative ratings for socks and scammers. In fact, leaving negative ratings leaves one open to rating retaliation -- as has happened to me. I don't do it for kicks, and I don't do it to further my own dealings; this is why I take offence to the statement.

I think BadBear's point is that you can't defend your original feedback on the basis of a feedback he left you afterwards. There's no forward causality.

[nubbins]

"Personal gain" is where the logic fails. I have nothing to personally gain by leaving TECSHARE a negative rating (he has purchased goods from me in the past!), nor do I have anything to personally gain by leaving negative ratings for socks and scammers. In fact, leaving negative ratings leaves one open to rating retaliation -- as has happened to me. I don't do it for kicks, and I don't do it to further my own dealings; this is why I take offence to the statement.

I think BadBear's point is that you can't defend your original feedback on the basis of a feedback he left you afterwards. There's no forward causality.

I wasn't defending my feedback on that basis, I was defending it because it's how I felt (and still feel).

I was also, separately, pointing out that saying "nubs neg-rates people for personal gain" is incorrect and therefore slanderous.

I can see why you might conflate the two ("What if..."), but they're separate thoughts. My apologies for any confusion on this point.

[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.

Ok Badbear. For the sake of argument, lets assume that SodaWarz is an alt of WoodCollector's ( I believe this not to be true but for the sake of working this out logically...). So assuming he is an alt of WC's, is this itself evidence that he is a scammer? It seems to me your basis for leaving the negative rating is still consisting only of Nubbin's speculative accusations, and the whole business of him allegedly using an alt is secondary. Using an alt itself is not sufficient grounds for leaving negative trust alone, regardless of this supposed proof which you can not share. You wouldn't leave a negative for a user who is not scamming people simply for using an alt would you?

So then I ask, based on what evidence do you conclude WoodCollector is a scammer? Even if you have "proof" he is using an alt (I have seen staff here repeatedly say it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove alts), what is the basis upon which you declare that he is in fact a scammer? Surely revealing this will not jeopardize some super top secret method to bust scammers.  If there is no proof he is a scammer, all of these trust ratings are inaccurate and simply an attempt at slandering WC and anyone who supports his story.

[Quickseller]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

[KWH]

IMHO, a Neutral would be good enough.

[smoothie]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

If WC has an alt account that he "sells" his coin(s) to then that alt account posts and says "Nice coin, excellent, would do business again."

That is scummy/scammy behavior.

Hence why he would be a scammer in that regard.

WC is shady already given his multiple misrepresentations on this forum about his work etc.

[TECSHARE]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

"fake reviews" is once again solely relying on the fact that he is either an alt or a scammer, neither of which have any proof being presented about it from anyone, just tons of accusations and speculation in mob format.

[Quickseller]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

"fake reviews" is once again solely relying on the fact that he is either an alt or a scammer, neither of which have any proof being presented about it from anyone, just tons of accusations and speculation in mob format.

the fake reviews rely on the fact that they are alts of wood collector. In your previous post you said that for the sake of arguement you would assume they are his alts.

Regardless of how good WC's work is, if he is using his own alt accounts to tell others they are satisfied customers when they are really not is scammy. It is very similar to buying trust.

[tss]

can't we all just get along.  seriously these trust wars are getting out of hand.

many have suggested different proposal to fix or remove trust... so why not another one,

i propose trust be modified as follows..
before you deal with someone you open your trust "comment-able" for that individual. 
once a transaction occurs the users can leave each other trust.

this way no randoms can just leave trust for people they have not directly dealt with.

[TECSHARE]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

"fake reviews" is once again solely relying on the fact that he is either an alt or a scammer, neither of which have any proof being presented about it from anyone, just tons of accusations and speculation in mob format.

the fake reviews rely on the fact that they are alts of wood collector. In your previous post you said that for the sake of arguement you would assume they are his alts.

Regardless of how good WC's work is, if he is using his own alt accounts to tell others they are satisfied customers when they are really not is scammy. It is very similar to buying trust.

Now you are twisting my words. For the sake of argument doesn't mean I agree. I disagree. I think WoodCollector has absolutely no alts. "for the sake of argument" means lets put that premise aside for a moment and examine his evidence for calling him a scammer on its own right independent of the alt accusations. Literally EVERY TIME there is conflict on this forum some asshat comes out and claims some one is an alt of some one else, this is probably the single most abused and unprovable accusation on the forum.

[Quickseller]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

"fake reviews" is once again solely relying on the fact that he is either an alt or a scammer, neither of which have any proof being presented about it from anyone, just tons of accusations and speculation in mob format.

the fake reviews rely on the fact that they are alts of wood collector. In your previous post you said that for the sake of arguement you would assume they are his alts.

Regardless of how good WC's work is, if he is using his own alt accounts to tell others they are satisfied customers when they are really not is scammy. It is very similar to buying trust.

Now you are twisting my words. For the sake of argument doesn't mean I agree. I disagree. I think WoodCollector has absolutely no alts. "for the sake of argument" means lets put that premise aside for a moment and examine his evidence for calling him a scammer on its own right independent of the alt accusations. Literally EVERY TIME there is conflict on this forum some asshat comes out and claims some one is an alt of some one else, this is probably the single most abused and unprovable accusation on the forum.

Right. But if you were to assume they are WC's alts (I know you disagree but lets say that you were shown proof), wouldn't you say that giving yourself fake reviews is something that you would consider scammy?

[TECSHARE]

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

"fake reviews" is once again solely relying on the fact that he is either an alt or a scammer, neither of which have any proof being presented about it from anyone, just tons of accusations and speculation in mob format.

the fake reviews rely on the fact that they are alts of wood collector. In your previous post you said that for the sake of arguement you would assume they are his alts.

Regardless of how good WC's work is, if he is using his own alt accounts to tell others they are satisfied customers when they are really not is scammy. It is very similar to buying trust.

Now you are twisting my words. For the sake of argument doesn't mean I agree. I disagree. I think WoodCollector has absolutely no alts. "for the sake of argument" means lets put that premise aside for a moment and examine his evidence for calling him a scammer on its own right independent of the alt accusations. Literally EVERY TIME there is conflict on this forum some asshat comes out and claims some one is an alt of some one else, this is probably the single most abused and unprovable accusation on the forum.

Right. But if you were to assume they are WC's alts (I know you disagree but lets say that you were shown proof), wouldn't you say that giving yourself fake reviews is something that you would consider scammy?

Maybe if there was some actual proof of this... but there is not. All we get is basically we cant tell you because of "national security". I don't find this at all convincing, furthermore there are a lot of people on this forum that are engaged in trust farming using alts and they almost never get negative feedback. Clearly this all revolves around the initial accusation that he was using a laser engraver, and no actual solid evidence of this has been presented, just speculation after speculation endlessly. Convenient how this is set up so the burden of proof is set upon WoodCollector and not Nubbins to provide sufficient evidence of his accusation.