Vod please stop fooling yourself,its getting more and more ridiculous you are just being pathetic,trying hard to counter the problems you've made,tecshare deserves his position not like you !
Lauda's gang will soon be forgotten,and you idiot will become clown in this forum.
Topic: TECSHARE is abusing the trust system - page 2. (Read 1825 times)
I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.
I'm of the firm opinion that he gets inclusions as a thanks for including others. There's simply no good reason for him to add 7 local board DT1 members whom he had no prior history with or knowledge of until they joined DT1.
It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".
Perhaps. Still not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.
I don't believe that Tecshare is a scammer.
Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.
He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.
But I think his opinions are genuinely held.
I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.
It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".
I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.
So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).
DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.
Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.
He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.
But I think his opinions are genuinely held.
I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.
It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".
I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.
So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).
DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.
Thanks for the support. I just want to correct one thing though. I never gave Vod a retaliatory trust rating, ever. He has given me negative ratings several times over the years for criticizing his behavior, but the community forced him to remove it, and I have never once responded in kind. Then earlier this year when he doxed and reported OGNasty to the IRS, I finally negative rated him for that. Of course a short time later here he is retaliating.
I don't believe that Tecshare is a scammer.
Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.
He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.
But I think his opinions are genuinely held.
I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.
It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".
I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.
So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).
DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.
Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.
He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.
But I think his opinions are genuinely held.
I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.
It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".
I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.
So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).
DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.
Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.
Done.
You guys think TS is conspiring with others about the trust system more than the DT1 who have been on since the start?
I think not..
I think not..
I wonder what "inconsistencies" and suspicions I could generate with a whole team of clowns digging through all of your trust lists? Of course these kind of unrealistic standards of constant suspicion couldn't possibly be applied to any one of you now could it? You all don't reciprocally add each other now do you? I wonder what kind of correlations might be made between everyone posting accusations against me here and their own trust lists. Hmmmmmmm.
Start digging and let us know!
No thanks, I will leave the peanut hunt up to you guys. I am just making the point that this level of scrutiny could be applied to literally anyone to try to cast aspersions.
Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.
As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)
As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)
Right. For that matter, if some one sees a problem with my list, the logical thing would be to notify me of it. That is unless of course the intent was to use it to defame me rather than correct the supposed issue, in that case a circus is in order.
Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.
As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)
As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)
You're right. They had mutual inclusions before though, up to the falling out in week 18:
http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html
The plot thickens: in week 8 (counting by my Trust list viewer's weeks), TECSHARE stopped excluding Hhampuz and in the same week started including him. At the same week, Hhampuz stopped excluding TECSHARE and a week later Hhampuz included TECSHARE.http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html
Disclaimer: I'm just spitting out data, I have no idea what conspiracy to tie to this data.
This would be when we "buried the hatchet" and had a few good pm's back and forth. Also around the time I decided not to trust/distrust someone based on their opinion, for better or worse.
You're right. They had mutual inclusions before though, up to the falling out in week 18:
http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html
The plot thickens: in week 8 (counting by my Trust list viewer's weeks), TECSHARE stopped excluding Hhampuz and in the same week started including him. At the same week, Hhampuz stopped excluding TECSHARE and a week later Hhampuz included TECSHARE.http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html
Disclaimer: I'm just spitting out data, I have no idea what conspiracy to tie to this data.
I haven't included anyone else for as long as I keep data
You included me in week 2 so I'm sure there is some conspiracy somewhere.
I wonder what "inconsistencies" and suspicions I could generate with a whole team of clowns digging through all of your trust lists? Of course these kind of unrealistic standards of constant suspicion couldn't possibly be applied to any one of you now could it? You all don't reciprocally add each other now do you? I wonder what kind of correlations might be made between everyone posting accusations against me here and their own trust lists. Hmmmmmmm.
Start digging and let us know!
I wonder what "inconsistencies" and suspicions I could generate with a whole team of clowns digging through all of your trust lists? Of course these kind of unrealistic standards of constant suspicion couldn't possibly be applied to any one of you now could it? You all don't reciprocally add each other now do you? I wonder what kind of correlations might be made between everyone posting accusations against me here and their own trust lists. Hmmmmmmm.
Sorry, you're not in DT1 so you don't qualify for backscratching.
Hhampuz was on DT1 when he included TECSHARE.You're right. They had mutual inclusions before though, up to the falling out in week 18:
http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/15728.html
I haven't included anyone else for as long as I keep data
You included me in week 2 so I'm sure there is some conspiracy somewhere.
Sorry, you're not in DT1 so you don't qualify for backscratching.
Hhampuz was on DT1 when he included TECSHARE.TECSHARE included me 3 weeks ago. I haven't included anyone else for as long as I keep data, so I'd like to think it's because he values my feedback (and that's how it should be).
To jump in tecshares defense here, I've had him on my trustlist for about 10 weeks now and I'm yet to be added to his.
Sorry, you're not in DT1 so you don't qualify for backscratching.
To jump in tecshares defense here, I've had him on my trustlist for about 10 weeks now and I'm yet to be added to his.
I won't go so far as to say this makes him a "scammer," but its pretty dishonest behavior. Its obvious what TS has been doing over the past few months, and its evidenced best by him adding 6 Turkish local board DT1s to his trust list weeks or days after they were added to DT1.
There should really be an open discussion as to whether or not this type of behavior is an acceptable practice for a DT1 member, and as shown by the fact that TECSHARE is now back at -1, its safe to say that the community agrees that its not.
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.
There should really be an open discussion as to whether or not this type of behavior is an acceptable practice for a DT1 member, and as shown by the fact that TECSHARE is now back at -1, its safe to say that the community agrees that its not.
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.
It's a pretty big accomplishment to be able to turn the current trust system into an ever bigger joke. Well done TECCY!
...
Oh WOW! Muchly argument solved with a Gif!
The argument was already made cupcake. This is just me entertaining myself because watching the clown car pick peanuts out of my droppings is getting boring.
As you can see here, clearly Nutilduhh is trying to get me to add them to their trust list, but when I did not reciprocate, he removed me...
9/10/2019 6:44:15 AM nutildah (11) distrusts TECSHARE (-1)
9/10/2019 6:34:11 AM nutildah (11) no longer distrusts TECSHARE (-1)
What say ye Nutilduhh? Apparently this standard of evidence is enough for you.
You have been judged guilty of not agreeing with everything him and his friends say.
nutildah: Doesn't it sound like hacker1001101001 is trying to get into TECSHARE's trust list.
Because TECSHARE said this:
Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.
I am going to bang you for trust list abuse ! LOL.
...
Oh WOW! Muchly argument solved with a Gif!
Jump to: