Topic: REMOVE NUBBINS FROM THE DEFAULT TRUST LIST FOR REPEATED TRUST ABUSE - page 2. (Read 15416 times)

What?


What I'm saying is that it is incorrect to use me as a guide if I am a stranger to you. I don't feel any burden at all.

For some reason, people seem to think that I *should* carry a burden, as if this is somehow a more sensible approach than placing the burden on those who have not yet developed the ability to make intelligent choices. I have no idea why people think this way, but an offhanded guess would be that kids today have an extreme aversion to assuming personal responsibility, and will do anything in their power to shift the burden onto others. But what do I know?

if you think this way than clearly that it is abusive to use it as the way we please especially those of default trust list


it is basically that you are on default trust , that your judgement of trust is basically a guide for the other wether to trust or not to trust someone, if you feel that this is a burden, feel free to ask CITM to take you off his list

Complaining... you mean like in this thread you just opened reigniting this issue?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tecshare-is-a-liar-and-a-vindictive-abuser-of-the-trust-system-969863


Thank you for your judgement supreme justice nut.

I'm saying anybody should use common sense when making deals. When someone tries to sell you a 2014 Porsche Cayenne for a super attractive price, would you do some research? I'm guessing you would. Now if you're dealing with an anonymous person from an undisclosed location, would you do research? I'm hoping you would. You should take measures to protect yourself from getting scammed online, just as you would do out on the streets. Believing in some magical trust list is only making the ignorant more vulnerable, since it allows scammers to easily gain their "trust". And that's how (most) big scams work. Paying off for a while to gain trust and once trusted they pull their scam.

Edit: On re-reading I think I've gone way off topic. Motion to remove Nubbins from the default trust list; Denied. Again, or still.

No I don't think a newbie should base any potential deal entirely on one's trust ratings, however I do think one's trust score should be the basis of where someone should start.

I know you will probably say that a newbie should say escrow (at least this is what many people say) however without the trust system, it is not possible to know for sure who it is appropriate to trust as escrow.

People who are new to the community shouldn't trust anyone. If we're "training" them to rely on green or red text they have less incentive to learn to stand on their own legs. If you're about to make a transaction I hope you've based your decision to trust the other party on something more substantial than this trust thingy and/or have taken steps to mitigate the risk.

Well people who are very new to the community need to have some kind of default list to lean on while they are learning. If they do not have anything to lean on initially then they will have a lot of difficulty figuring out who to trust because of the massive amount of manipulation that goes on in the bitcoin world.

I think we should have a forum for people to voice their concerns about trust that others are giving as well as concerns about trust received. Equally important is the ability of people who leave trust for others to keep an open mind about possibly removing or modifying sent trust after receipt of feedback from others.

Now if your sent feedback is appropriate to be given to TECHSHARE is something that you will need to decide yourself 

Let it happen.

When it gets bad enough, and the pages pile up with red enough, you'll realize what you should have realized from the start: your personal trust list shouldn't be Default Trust; it should be those you actually trust. You think any of your ratings even come up on my screen?

Not sure who to trust? Maybe that's something you need to figure out before you're responsible enough to use magic internet money.

I think that there should be some level of community standards when it comes to the trust system. Otherwise people will be exchanging feedback based solely on personal vendettas and if we give it enough time, then everyone will be labeled a scammer because everyone will at one point piss someone on default trust off. 

I think people should use trust ratings however they please (AKA the current system!). All of this "rules about trust" nonsense is foolish.

Don't like how my ratings might unduly influence others? Then either give me two trust systems (one for public consumption and one for private use), or educate people on what trust is, how to read feedback pages, why to trust or doubt my ratings, etc. Putting the burden of behaviour modification on people who got inducted into DT is a backwards-thinking approach that doesn't tackle the root cause of the issue -- noobs getting misled by inaccurate feedback.

Imagine if all the time wasted on this thread was put towards writing a guide that helped new users understand how to objectively weigh presented evidence to form their own opinion! 

But I guess it's way easier to just wag the chin about "mob action" and complain about how everything is unfair.

After all, complaining fixes things, right?

This would not be a good idea. It would make it more difficult for the community to stop scammers from scamming in the first place and would make the entire marketplace more vulnerable to scams. If the marketplace is vulnerable to scams then people are not going to want to trade in the first place, which means that overall bitcoin commerce will decline

I don't think people should be allowed to leave negative trust ratings unless they can prove that the person is a scammer, or they can prove the person is leaving false trust ratings.

Notice how most the seats are empty? This show is getting old.

There is so much butthurt in this thread.

Maybe there should be a butthurt of the year award.

Someone should make a set of awards they "hand" out to people on this forum for like "most trustworthy"..."most butthurt"....

lol

Actually the proof is in the op, the problem is you don't have any clue how the default trust is supposed to work, so you wouldn't recognise it as proof now would you?

Sounds like speculation. Where's the proof?

Oh, wait, proof is only required from other people, not you. What a narcissist.

Wait, so you rally a mob against a user, damage his reputation before he even has time to respond, and attempt to silence anyone critical of your actions by abusing the default trust system, and WE are the "intimidators"? That is pretty funny. Accusing your opponent of exactly what you perpetrate is a pretty stale old manipulation technique. What is it any of us have to gain by trying to "intimidate" you? I can't think of anything. You on the other hand have demonstrated your compulsive desire for drama for no other reason than your own personal entertainment.

You initiated this conflict, myself (and others) responded. That is not intimidation, that is called a reaction to your abusive behavior. You should not be on the default trust list. You have shown very clearly you have zero control over your emotions and compulsions, and you have demonstrated repeatedly you are willing to abuse it for your own personal gratification.

iknowthatfeel.png


Actually, I thought we were both done with it, and then just yesterday I noticed the negative feedback you left me. Would've opened my thread sooner if I had noticed it, but since you're not on Default Trust, it was hidden behind an unobtrusive link.

I openly admit that I won't back down to intimidators like WoodCollector/TerraHasher/TECSHARE/SodaWarz/etc, and may respond -- should I choose -- to any defamation in such a matter as I see fit. would also like to point out that should any third parties be offended (sorry, "butt hurt") by this, the small "Ignore" link under my grumpy face should be in working order.

How exactly did I create drama? By having an opinion other than what is popular? By being attacked for pointing out the abuses that are rampant here on the forum? Perhaps "I" created this drama when Nubbins abused the default trust to try to keep myself and others from pointing out the flaw in his logic and behavior?

The "way I am acting" is in defense of my own reputation, and is the only means I have to bring attention to the rampant systematic abuse happening on this forum. If I just kept my mouth shut and let these people continue unchallenged, exactly what good comes of it other than them just getting what they want and being allowed to continue their abusive behavior?

You guys can't help but keep trying to make this about me by constantly attacking my character, yet somehow in that same breath you are saying I should not point out how these abuses have been perpetrated. Quite frankly I do not care what the peanut gallery thinks, I want the patterns of abuse here to be documented, and I know for a fact there are people who support my actions, even if they are too concerned about preserving their own reputations from being attacked for speaking up about it publicly. I am done allowing all the hard work I put into building a solid reputation here be exploited as a means of extortion to keep me from bringing these abuses to light.

I was done with this, then Nubbins decided to turn it into an issue again by posting some lame ass "scam" accusation thread about me, along with a new negative trust rating as if it will change anything. I don't know how it could be any clearer he has no self control, only seeks more drama, and that he does not belong on the default trust.