Pages:
Author

Topic: Tecshare Maliciously Abused The BitcoinTalk Trust System (Read 7523 times)

hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 501
2 posters both with hardly any activity getting in on the fight over trust by an old users and some dick which then the staff got in on, some surreptitiously, cause they wanna throw their cyber weight around. Then you turn on me for pointing out that those newb accounts stink like shell accounts! Perhaps you've been directed to oppose my assessment cause it's a little too close to the truth!

So much I could spout about this situation that stinks all the way up to T.........s, but I won't, cause I'm not a snake in the grass like most of you c...ts!

Oh and yes Tecshare is a friend of mine, I didn't realize that was a secret! Do you want me to provide an extensive list of people I'm friends with?

And I haven't posted much of late cause I have a life outside of here! If my account is a shell account explain the purpose of it, STAFF?

Staff you can check my IP to see there's a continental divide between me and Tecshare!

Good to see BTCtalk now has staff making BS accusations! Perhaps you should back those up?



Seems like you and Tecshare share some of the same mentality, as you go about insulting, taunting, and "harassing" (by Tecshare's arbitrary standards) people who you know to be people in authority in this forum you appear to disrespect and/or disregard, and/or fail to appreciate their enormous judicial restraint in this thread.

You and TecShare are the ones who throughout this thread expressed copious amounts of contempt, not just for an individual, or those who hold an opposing view to yours, but for the conventions of this site's reconciliation process, as well as common protocols of any civil dispute process, ... heck you even rejected the informed considerations of consul who share your underlined view.

Find, and focus on, the good reasons to be on bitcointalk.org.
 

global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
2 posters both with hardly any activity getting in on the fight over trust by an old users and some dick which then the staff got in on, some surreptitiously, cause they wanna throw their cyber weight around. Then you turn on me for pointing out that those newb accounts stink like shell accounts! Perhaps you've been directed to oppose my assessment cause it's a little too close to the truth!

So much I could spout about this situation that stinks all the way up to T.........s, but I won't, cause I'm not a snake in the grass like most of you c...ts!

Oh and yes Tecshare is a friend of mine, I didn't realize that was a secret! Do you want me to provide an extensive list of people I'm friends with?

And I haven't posted much of late cause I have a life outside of here! If my account is a shell account explain the purpose of it, STAFF?

Staff you can check my IP to see there's a continental divide between me and Tecshare!

Good to see BTCtalk now has staff making BS accusations! Perhaps you should back those up?

You were the one accusing people of being shell accounts without any evidence and there was evidence to suggest you were quite possibly one in this situation but you've now just admitted to being one yourself anyway. He might not own or control your account but your relationship with Techshare is very relevant because it shows you are bias and anything you say on that matter should be taken with less weight because you're not being impartial, hence you're essentially a shill or a shell here or whatever you want to call it. You're also being very childish about it all now.

And I was directed to this thread actually, by Techshare via PM asking if I could "give him some support" and I suspect he did the same to you, but as usual people start crying about there being a conspiracy or the mods are abusing their power blah blah blah when something just hasn't gone their way and they were in the wrong.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven,

lol.  I got drunk ONE time and I paid for it.  You make it sound like I do it on a regular basis.
Yeah but, you do. I posted examples of trust you left for non-scam related activities, but some how they are ok. I am sorry about calling you out personally, but for Badbear to criticize me while he has you on his trust list is completely hypocritical.

Yeah, but I don't get drunk and post on a regular basis - I did it once.  You are lying.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven,

lol.  I got drunk ONE time and I paid for it.  You make it sound like I do it on a regular basis.
Yeah but, you do. I posted examples of trust you left for non-scam related activities, but some how they are ok. I am sorry about calling you out personally, but for Badbear to criticize me while he has you on his trust list is completely hypocritical.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven,

lol.  I got drunk ONE time and I paid for it.  You make it sound like I do it on a regular basis.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)
So all of these ratings I am listing below were only for scams? It doesn't look like that to me.

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference   
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference   
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000      
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference   
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Also there are dozens of negative trust left on nothing more than a hunch that the user is a scammer on top of the clearly non scam related posts above. People on the default trust REGULARLY "abuse" the trust just like the staff have claimed I have, and some how I am supposed to understand this is selectively enforced and some are more equal than others.

Those "overpriced" goods were sold AT COST. Just because it is available somewhere else on the net for less doesn't make my goods "overpriced" or "unfair". If it is really that unfair who the hell would buy it to begin with? If no one would by my product to begin with because it is so unfairly priced, what is the point of warning people about it? No one here considered that someone might be willing to pay COST for a product for the reassurance of knowing THEY WONT GET ROBBED. He had no justification for being in my threads. He was there solely for trolling, and trolls don't give a shit how many logical arguments you make, that doesn't make them go away.

I wasn't just "feeling" like he was harassing me, it is a FACT that is what he was doing, and all I demanded in this process was he restore me to my original state before he started harassing me. Since that is impossible now he has no chance in hell of getting my cooperation and he will be stuck with his negative feedback. I made an offer to that would restore US BOTH to our original states but he refused this in favor of attempting to intimidate me into following his dictates. Now both of us are worse off than when we started. Not exactly constructive of him considering every step he took was one of escalation.

As far as me "Selling trust", that is just horse shit. I have been the first trading partner for HUNDREDS of users here easily, because I was at one point the only reliable game retailer. Additionally new users feel comfortable trading with me because they know I treat people fairly. I purposely labeled all trust left to new users with the product or service they transacted with me so that people reviewing their feedback could know EXACTLY what it was for and judge the rating accordingly. Just because I get a lot of new users here started does NOT mean I am selling feedback, and all the accusation is just another attempt at slander me so no one else has to admit their own mistakes here.

So far I am the ONLY ONE WHO HAS admitted any wrong doing in this situation. No one has even acknowledged he instigated this and he should have been minding his own business to begin with, and my reward for offering reconciliation is more punitive punishment and coercion of my trusted trading partners to remove me from the default trust. I have lost what little respect I have for the staff here with this (although I'm sure they could give a shit what this community thinks). They are simply using me as a scape goat so they can move on with the new trust system WITHOUT having to admit mistakes and abuse were made on their part. As usual complaints against mods and staff are just swept under the rug and ignored while they offer me up as a sacrifice to appease their detractors for the slightest infraction. Standard operating procedure around here.
full member
Activity: 280
Merit: 100
2 posters both with hardly any activity getting in on the fight over trust by an old users and some dick which then the staff got in on, some surreptitiously, cause they wanna throw their cyber weight around. Then you turn on me for pointing out that those newb accounts stink like shell accounts! Perhaps you've been directed to oppose my assessment cause it's a little too close to the truth!

So much I could spout about this situation that stinks all the way up to T.........s, but I won't, cause I'm not a snake in the grass like most of you c...ts!

Oh and yes Tecshare is a friend of mine, I didn't realize that was a secret! Do you want me to provide an extensive list of people I'm friends with?

And I haven't posted much of late cause I have a life outside of here! If my account is a shell account explain the purpose of it, STAFF?

Staff you can check my IP to see there's a continental divide between me and Tecshare!

Good to see BTCtalk now has staff making BS accusations! Perhaps you should back those up?



global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Yeah, that's the connection I was making Tongue. Tech is the dev or something of Infinitecoin, so likely a buddy of his.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
no longer selling accounts
49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?

If there's a "shell" account here it's probably you. Barely any posts since March/April and the ones you have made are almost exclusively about Infinitecoin.
Here is a quote from negative trust that TECHSHARE left someone regarding Infinitecoin
Quote
freee101 0: -0 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference   This user is making baseless accusations about the Infinitecoin client containing malware. Furthermore this user has prematurely doxed a development team member accusing him of this when he has absolutely no access to the client code or the servers. I will consider removing this if you either provide proof the client is malware or remove your many public accusations.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?

If there's a "shell" account here it's probably you. Barely any posts since March/April and the ones you have made are almost exclusively about Infinitecoin.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)

49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?
Your account (just like every other account) at one point only had 49 posts, and this is not evidence that I am just a "shell".

Unless you can dispute any of the facts/arguments that I have presented with facts then the fact that you think I am a "shell" does not matter.

You need to remember not to believe what someone says simply because of their rank, but should read what they are saying to judge if what they are saying is credible or not
legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043
#Free market
#TECSHARE

now you're still a trustworthy person , but you're not anymore in the defaultTrust list and this is not a real problem Wink.

Good luck with your future deal.
full member
Activity: 280
Merit: 100
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)

49 posts JR member

Hmmmm shell account perhaps?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)
full member
Activity: 280
Merit: 100
Disappointing that the staff have chosen to basically shit on a guy who has done a lot to make the trading and trust system within this site a credible entity.

Regardless of circumstance I think this has been handled poorly by both sides of the street!

Seems as if the Staff including those who aren't so active but have major control have used this a vessel to demonstrate their power and in doing so have hung a loyal user out to dry for a moment or two of annoyance on his behalf, which is arguably justified in some respects. Surely those in control could have approached Tecshare privately and said "hey man we can't have this, shut it down". Instead of forcing others to do your dirty work for you, which has occurred.

The management of this site was always kept in high regards by myself as they didn't allow this kind of shit from escalating. One wonders why this has now been allowed to occur. Seems like a good opportunity to push some new site features perhaps or maybe just show you can, and will flex your muscles?Huh?  

Ban me if you like I don't care, but I'm sure when you read this YOU will know I'm right in what i say.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network.  

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.
Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven, but one incident after 3 years of impeccable activity here and I am out, and the people who trusted me are coerced into removing me under threat of removal themselves. This was just an excuse to make an example out of some one so you can keep forgiving your cronies for real abuse and make a scapegoat out of someone who has been an honest and dedicated user of Bitcoin and the forums. You claim that I was wrong and I refused to see that, I admitted what I was wrong about, putting in a BTC value when there was none. I corrected that.

What ensued after was corersion against me and others in an attempt to force me to change my trust rating. ARMIS was in fact only there to harass me in my single outlet for trading on the forum. He initiated this conflict. He claims he deleted his posts but he only deleted one then began posting again. He deleted all his posts after I left him a trust rating to make it look like I was overreacting and that he actually stopped posting. If you read my quotes of him you can see he continued. He also deleted several taunting insulting posts from his own thread again to make himself appear like a victim in this and not a perpetrator. He has since them posted in at least 5 of my other marketplace ops accusing me of being "untrustworthy" in an attempt to slander me for giving him negative trust. Also him changing his signature to slander me also was clearly another escalation as well.

No one is acknowledging here the fact that he began this and escalated it at every point of the way. This is why I am being "stubborn", because I admitted to the mistakes I made, but that wasn't enough you had to punish me punitively for defending myself when the moderators refused to do so even when repeatedly requested. I didn't just attack this user for no reason. He was actively slandering me in my marketplace ops directly inhibiting my ability to trade in the only section I am permitted to. He has the freedom to criticize me everywhere on the forum. He also believes he also has the right to harass me and interfere with my marketplace posts dedicated exclusively to trading for his own personal entertainment.

This wasn't me trying to "blackmail" or oppress this user in some way. All I was demanding was to be restored to my original state BEFORE he started this conflict with me. I never demanded he be silenced or be unable to slander me anywhere else on the forum he likes. He is taking my ability to speak from me then claiming I am doing the same to him because I took action against him. My feedback was legitimate once corrected. I pointed out his harassment, and that is what it was for. Badbear for example accuses me of leaving negative trust frivolously and that I am some how abusing it for using it like it was intended, to warn others of problematic users, yet his trust list contains people who use the feedback system in EXACTLY the same way, and he excuses it. I am accused of participating in an "old boys club" while the real old buys club uses me as a convenient scapegoat so they can further excuse the abuses of their buddies.

I have seen the moderators and staff here have whole threads dedicated to harassing a minor (atlas), for no other reason than they found him annoying. I pointed out that it was a bit excessive and my post was removed. I then posted that anyone's posts not critical of atlas were being deleted so they banned me. You people have no right to talk to me about being aggressive and abusing users. It is a daily activity for staff here. Meanwhile this troll comes along and manipulates the situation and cries like he is being oppressed and the staff lick it up because it is a easy way to roll out and justify trust upgrades and cover for the actual abusers of the trust system, their buddies. I imagine the next step will be that you will retroactively claim my feedback is now invalid because I have other options with the updates. That's a convenient backdoor way for punitive action then forcing me to remove my feedback anyway because you changed the rules after it was left Wink  

You are always talking about how you don't moderate feedback, but clearly you do, only thru coercion and threats of trust removal. This isn't a forum trust network. It is the Theymos trust network, and he demands everyone in his harem does what he decides. There is no posting of clear rules for trust ratings, and even if there were they are being selectively enforced to cover for the ACTUAL repeated abuse of trust from people in his trust list which he conveniently seems to not see. Then I come along and make a single infraction of these unwritten rules, correct the mistake in posting the trust, but refuse to submit to their threats for removing it completely because Armis instigated this and refuses to reciprocate with removing his slander of me and I am punitively punished. Not only by being removed by from the trust but because Armis still has slanderous posts in my marketplace threads regardless of how many times he claims he deleted them. He had no intent of leaving me to trade in peace, or to even engage in trading activity. If you actually read the posts of his I quoted you can see he is simply there to entertain himself at the expense of my ability to trade.

 I can't just take my existing years old threads with tons of good customer feedback, answers to questions, and other valuable content and make it self moderated, otherwise I would and none of this would have happened to begin with. My only option within the forum architecture left was either to leave a negative rating, or simply suffer damage of my ability to trade and speak freely here without being drown out by a 4chan like atmosphere.

The marketplace is so overrun with trolling I can't even sell items at cost without people claiming I am being unfair just as pretext to start an argument and make more accusations. This is exactly what Armis was doing to me, and I told him repeatedly to leave my thread and he refused. He CLAIMS he deleted his posts, but he deleted only his first post, then jumped right back in to start harassing again when others joined in emboldened by his first post. I attempted reports to moderators many times but all of my requests for assistance were ignored. He later deleted his other posts in my now closed thread (now reopened as a self moderated thread) after I left him negative feedback to try to appear reconciliatory and victimized after he had repercussions from me.

If trusted users aren't free to leave trust ratings that they decide on what is the point of the trust network? Also if the point of the trust network is to help direct people to honest traders, what is the point of removing me from the trust if I have been a model of a legitimate trader here? You say I was abusing the system for ONE trust rating left when users regularly hand out DOZENS here, even from users on the default trust list, for nothing more than a guess or because they were annoyed. All you are doing is EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Blackmailing me into doing and saying what you want.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
In short, what I mean. I trust Tecshare with my money, however he did handle this situation poorly. He asked me for advice on what to do after this incident happened, and I advised that he change his feedback to a 0 BTC risked sum. Frankly, people should be able to leave whatever feedback they want, as long as its accurate. If I wanted to leave people feedback saying, this guy is a jerk because X, I should be able to do so, however fraudulently applying a value isn't ok, which is why I pulled Tecshare from my list.

Even changing it to 0btc still wouldn't have been ok in my opinion. I don't think people in the default trust should be leaving neg rep just because they think someone is a jerk. The new neutral feedback option would've been perfect here, but most people who are pissed off or angry aren't going to use it or even if they do the person who they left it on will likely retaliate with negative.

Despite this incident, I wouldn't hesitate to deal with Tecshare (personally) I wouldn't hesitate to look at feedback he has left with a bit of extra weight, however whether it was Tecshare's fault, or just a bad decision based on limitations of the trust system (lack of a neutral or whatever) being on the default trust list is a privilege which puts extra weight on your shoulders to make sure you are accurately giving feedback, and this was handled poorly.

It was handled poorly. I like Techshare and agree that he is still trustworthy with money but he was in the wrong here and his stubbornness and attempt to bully and essentially blackmail was an abuse of the system IMO and it has now cost him.

Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network.  

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.

Everyone knows the feedback system here is heavily flawed but I can't think of any feedback system that is perfect, but I think the right thing happened here and people on the default list should be scutinised more and and held accountable when they overstep the mark. When they have, or potentially have, it should be open for discussion and people from all sides can chime in and if they have been found to abuse the system and refuse to co-operate or see their error they should be considered for removed from the list. I think the trust system can work very well but only if you can trust the people on it to make rational decisions and they aren't afraid to admit they're wrong or change their mind.  
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128
Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network. 

In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
Good for you, now we just need CanaryInTheMine to weigh in so this can be resolved. I'm curious to see what he thinks.
This technically no longer matters due to recent improvements in the trust system. All that would need to happen is one additional person on the "root" level of default trust to exclude TECSHARE for the matter to be more or less resolved.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128
Good for you, now we just need CanaryInTheMine to weigh in so this can be resolved. I'm curious to see what he thinks.
Pages:
Jump to: