Topic: Tecshare Maliciously Abused The BitcoinTalk Trust System - page 2. (Read 7518 times)

I still trust Tecshare from a business standpoint, but I have removed him from my trust list. And yes I have been really busy, found out my house's wiring is shit, and I've been spending the last week or so trying to keep my house from burning down, sorry for my absence.

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.

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.

I asked that that be made a feature of the new forum.

This brings to light the need for neutral feedback. In my opinion this allows a user to leave a message on someone's profile without any rating.

Yes I am very convinced you were brutally victimized by me asking you to stay out of my threads, and I'm sure you did absolutely nothing to provoke this senseless & vicious attack on your impeccable character. ::: insert crocodile tears here ::: I repeat, I can ONLY sell in the market place. This is my ONLY outlet for this information and he chooses to maliciously interfere with it. He is free to criticize me on nearly the rest of the entire forum. Your superficial veneer of an excuse saying you were just "helping" doesn't hold up. Your goal was harassment from the very first post and it has been nothing but escalation from you since then. You are going to have to act if you want resolution from me. Let me know if you decide to grow up. If not that's fine with me too.

To whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave this thread and not return.    My guess is you won't respect your own arbitrary guidelines for thread content contributions.  In other words, you feel it is ok to tell me that I can't go to your threads but presumably you see no problem in coming to a thread I start to make that demand.    That is the narrow-minded mentality that makes it extremely difficult for you to see things with a reasonable perspective, for you if it isn't black or white you just don't see it, worse yet is your sense of entitlement beyond the privilege; you clearly feel that you have the right to do as you please with "your" thread, and "your" feedback; even if it means breaking someone else's rules, and trust.

You were TRUSTED to make reasonable decisions all of the time, this time you failed; you were TRUSTED to act responsibly all of the time, this time you failed; and you were TRUSTED to be honest all of the time, this time you failed.   You failed because you are human, when others saw your fail they quickly ran to your aid, but you shoved most of them away claiming to be ok -- it is not ok, you are not ok, there is nothing ok about the matter.

There's a trust line that doesn't extend to perhaps 90+% of the membership but it flows to you, it starts with the admin, and connects down to the few who should be proud to respect and honor the privilege of that trust.  You knowingly broke that trust, and inasmuch as those above you on that trust-line may be encouraging you to mend the trust you breached, you refuse like a stubborn child who won't eat his spinach -- it's for your own good.  

Whatever infraction you believe I did to provoke your wrath is gone, was gone before you issued the feedback and gone before you visited my thread.  However, most of the results of your behavior is still shining bright.  You want forgiveness for breaking the rules while the damage is still visible, but don't want to give forgiveness for a matter that no longer is visible.   That's the narrow-minded mentality at work again.  You see the splinter that was in my eye and complain while a log is in your eye.

I didn't lie in an Trust system, you did;  I didn't fraudulently claim, in a Trust report, to do business with anyone, you did; you have PROVEN yourself to be untrustworthy, I'm calling attention to that breach and asking for a resolution consistent with that breach.

As for you demanding that I not use my signature to point to my thread -- just more of that narrow-minded mentality at work yet again.  Think, could I tell you what to do with your sig? ... so why would you think you can tell me what to do with my sig?


Again, to whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave the thread and not return.

I don't think you can fairly say the default trust network is bad without saying the whole trust system is bad.  In both cases, the trust system assumes that people will be honest/trustworthy in using it so that you can accurately rely on the feedback.   My opinion is that there are always going to be people that abuse the trust system (just want to clarify I'm not speaking to this particular situation, but generally), and that the default trust network actually helps to mitigate this issue by indirectly ascribing more value to trustworthy accounts.  If people have an incentive to be trustworthy, i.e. to possibly 'make it' onto the default trust list and have a more valuable account, then they are more likely to be trustworthy.

Your continued attempts at damaging my reputation are useless. Give up and delete your troll posts and your false accusations from my marketplace ops, remove me from your signature, lock this thread, and stay out of my OPs. Take responsibility for what YOU initiated. Continued escalation just demonstrates your malicious intent. I gave you an avenue for reconciliation. You can either take it, or take my trust rating for you. You don't intimidate me.

Ok, that's fine, you can have your opinion on that, but why here? Are there not more appropriate venues? I initially didn't even want to participate in the trust system but it became an integral part of trading here whether I liked it or not. I don't understand why you expect me to defend it.

I don't know if this was in response to my post:

If so, then yes you got your feedback, and overall trust numbers by proving over time that you were a trustworthy person.
Was that what got you into the default trust network? I have no idea.
If anyone in DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust+1 trusts you, then you are in.
If they don't, you aren't.
You could be the most trustworthy person in the world, but have not come to the attention of the right people, and be excluded, or you could be a confirmed scammer, and still be included, as long as one of those people maintains his trust rating. Because of account reselling, they might not even be the same people who were originally trusted.
Your extremely positive trust ratings are likely to be a good indication you are trustworthy. Simply being in the default trust network is an incredibly poor indication of that one way or the other.
The default trust network is simply a bad thing. That doesn't reflect poorly on you.

You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.
You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14
The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?
[/quote]



Notice was sent to SaltySpitoon yesterday, and notice was sent to CanaryInTheMine today.

So I didn't get all my trust for working my ass off for 3 years making sure everyone I trade with is satisfied? I never thought of it that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=192oEC5TX_Q#t=56

(and are both in the default trust network themselves, and so therefore 'equal')

Talking only about the default trust issues, and not anything specific to this issue or the people concerned, this is exactly it.
People aren't going to jump up to argue against someone who:
- Has left negative feedback about someone who annoyed them, and
- Is in the default trust network
For fear of annoying them, and being flagged as untrustworthy to anyone who subscribes to default trust, which everyone does by default.

It is, by definition, an old boys network.
You cannot get in by your own actions. You cannot get kicked out by your own actions.
It is purely the choice of the existing members.

Aggressive? So telling people who have no interest in trading, nor have ever traded with me to get lost is aggressive? With all the crap that goes on in this forum me telling trolls to get lost is offensive to you? You peddle other people's trust ratings, I am not sure you are the one to criticize me about this.

Why does Armis have a right to decide what price I charge for my property? Which by the way I was selling at cost. This is not a legitimate complaint from someone looking to make a trade, it is just someone with nothing better to do than get his derps off messing with other people's ability to trade legitimately. Do you think that nearly every marketplace post here doesn't have a corresponding link somewhere on the internet that sells the item cheaper? I wasn't misrepresenting anything, how is this "unfair" for someone to pay a price that they were fully disclosed of?

Do people stand around in Target and hand you coupons for Wall-mart when you pick up an item to look at it? Do you think any proprietor would find that acceptable under any circumstances?

 If he has a dispute with my behavior he has the ability to post about it, like in this thread right here. His bullshit about trying to "help" is just a superficial justification for his off topic trolling of my market place thread. My marketplace threads are the ONLY place I can sell items here. He has the entire forum to start drama about me if he so chooses (and he does).

This is not the same as him opening a scam accusation against me. For one we never transacted or attempted to transact. Additionally if he wanted to accuse me of scamming he should have put it in the SCAM ACCUSATION subforum. His criticisms of me are completely fabricated because we have never traded. Me leaving him a negative is in no way reflective of my trustworthiness as a trader. My criticisms of him are for what he did, he spent a considerable amount of time harassing me, that's what I gave him a mark for.

As far as you deconstructing my feedback... its very clear you are attempting to create and feed of of more drama here...
VODs feed back for an apparent scam is ok, but my feedback for an apparent scam is not?
re 5/11/14 + 9/10/13
His negative on my trust was for "trying to rip him off without escrow" but he posted this AFTER I negged him for scamming, we never had a transaction. It was fake and retaliatory for calling out his scamming. Several other users clearly negged him as well for the same scam attempt.

As far as Armis scamming, I didn't claim he was scamming, my feedback says "You should focus on your own affairs instead of harassing others." Which was a comment about what he was actually doing, harassing me. You can "generally believe" whatever you like, reality is clearly different.

I remember when I blew up a few years ago at a time when I had much less at stake than I do now.  I'm not sure if you remember my argumentativeness around Old Engineer's "guess the date when BTC will hit $4" contest.  To this day, I feel my blowback (albeit prior to the implementation of the trust system) was justified, but I realized I had to tone it down a bit for the sake of my reputation.  A couple years later, I'm on default trust, and while my posts often take a contrarian position, I don't think I've done anything that warrants excluding me from the list. 

Sometimes certain issues rub you the wrong way, or you might be having a bad day, or a combination of things.  TECSHARE essentially acknowledged he went overboard by fabricating elements of his feedback, and he has since corrected them.  To me, this demonstrates a heathy level of awareness of what's transpired here, even if additional awareness only came as a result of hindsight (I.e. the blow ack he received in this thread).

To me, trust has a lot to do with consistency.  And even in spite of this particular issue, I think TECSHARE has done more than enough to demonstrate that he is an honest seller.  As far a I can recall, this is the only issue in which he has come under the microscope, and given that he's been an outstanding trader otherwise, I still think he deserves a place on default trust.  I think his defensiveness and attitude is warranted, and while I'm not in favor of fabricated or frivolous feedback, he has corrected the fabrication; whether his feedback was frivolous is up for interpretation.  I don't see it as frivolous because, according to his feedback history, it seems like an anamoly.

TECSHARE is being very aggressive against anyone who speaks out against him. If you look at his sales threads you will see that he bashes anyone who tries to question him or how he describes (or prices) his products. He will not accept any kind of criticism.

He is acting especially aggressive in this case. I would say that people are not speaking out against him out of fear they will receive similar treatment that Armis received. The fact that so many people conduct business here makes receiving negative trust a torpedo to an account. The only people who have spoken out against him (vod and badbear) conduct very little business here.

He is talking about theymos removing him from his trust network, as being someone that is trusted, not as a moderator. There is a big difference. Also the mod that is "coerced" to change your feedback is giving facts and is not forcing you to change anything.

Again, you keep saying its "personal". It is NOT PERSONAL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY. I never talked with him once before he started harassing me. He is attempting to harm my BUSINESS by attacking my reputation. He got only what he was dishing out back. BTW its easy for everyone here to call this "unnecessary" when there is zero cost for you to completely ignore the situation, and I am the one that is dealing with loss of sales and harassment. Apparently because I have lots of trust I am supposed to stand perfectly still like a royal guard while tourists slap my face. [/quote]You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.
You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14
The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?

This is interesting. I hear up and down how admins and mods don't ever touch feedback, the way I am being coerced to change mine I am not surprised.

Again, you keep saying its "personal". It is NOT PERSONAL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY. I never talked with him once before he started harassing me. He is attempting to harm my BUSINESS by attacking my reputation. He got only what he was dishing out back. BTW its easy for everyone here to call this "unnecessary" when there is zero cost for you to completely ignore the situation, and I am the one that is dealing with loss of sales and harassment. Apparently because I have lots of trust I am supposed to stand perfectly still like a royal guard while tourists slap my face.

P.S. you guys keep saying "default trust". I would like to point out I am not on the default trust list.

It is a bad story , but if someone is in the deafult trust list I think it's because he is an honest person and he (try) to  help the community (Like vod and tomatocage when he has stopped a lot of scammers) .


#TECSHARE  a negative feedback for "personal" issues is not necessary .

As a heads up I would recommend that you be careful with all negative feedback you leave I was deemed to have "abused" the trust system with one of my feedback ratings that I left on a user that I had proved was trying to extort money from me and was slandering me. As a result of the rating I left I was removed from theymos trust tree.

You guys keep calling this "personal", but how is him attacking my trade reputation for no valid reason, and me responding in kind to stop the behavior "personal"? He is directly attacking my ability to sell. That is beyond personal, it is directly trade related. He slandered my reputation, and I responded by marking him for his abuse. Also VOD, BTW I think it is important to mark scammers, but to be frank I don't take your feedback as seriously because you do apply it frivolously, even if MOST of them were scammers.

Badbear doesn't need to "attack" me - he can simply and quietly untrust me and all my power goes away, as I am not at the root of the trust system.  He is, and he trusts me at level 2.  Believe it or not, Badbear and I communicate less than once a month, and we certainly don't collaborate on our trust.

I hope you'll call me out anytime you see me leaving feedback you deem to be personal.  I do leave a lot of negative feedback, but that's because there are a lot of scammers.  I HOPE people don't view my feedback as less truthful because I leave a lot of it.