Topic: Trust System Abuse By Nullius - page 11. (Read 5692 times)

I don't believe the rating against TECSHARE would have been valid in the old system. The criteria used to be something like "this person has scammed or you think will scam" which is not something that a reasonable person could say about TECSHARE or Kalemder based on those two ratings and references from today/yesterday. Worthy of exclusion perhaps, maybe even a neutral rating if you feel very strongly about it. Not worthy of a DT red trust IMO.

I don't understand this. The introduction of the flag system and change of the trust system as a direct effect had a weakening on the criteria for negative ratings. How can something that was valid before not be valid now in this context

You can use neutral trust to label anyone any way you want. However if you use negative (red) trust you're clicking this:


So your trust rating should state and/or reference what makes trading with this person high-risk. Quite a few of your negative ratings posted this year (not going to 2018 - different trust system, different discussion) don't meet that criteria as far as I can see, including most recently TECSHARE's and Kalemder's ratings and I can't help but think the latter one is aimed at booting him out of the campaign. Not a good use of DT privileges.

TECSHARE, I am not a bull before whom a red flag can be waved (as I noticed one of your supporters recently also tried on another thread—much more subtly).  Unlike some here, I will not take your bait.

---

Vod’s negative feedback on TECSHARE, dated 2019-09-09 and now (together with Lauda’s negative) supported by me via my counter-counter tag, states:


Now, trust-system abuser TECSHARE, who dishonestly reached DT1 through “vote”-trading, has opened against me a hit-thread laced with subtextual panic that I may honestly and properly soon reach DT1.  (Insofar as I can tell, I am indeed eligible.)  TECSHARE’s basis for accusing me of trust-system abuse:  My support of Vod’s tag correctly identifying him as a trust-system abuser (among other good tags).

Wherefore:


The word “hypocrite” is hereby inadequate.  The English language needs a word specific to covering for one’s own crimes by accusing one’s accusers.

---

I have indeed observed that TECSHARE indeed has an interesting definition of the word “abuse”:  Busting abusers.


N.b. the pattern of accusing others of arbitrarily redefining or misconstruing words as he arbitrarily redefines or misconstrues words to the opposite of their actual meanings, to his advantage.  See my above remark about a needed neologism.  Is there a philologist in the house?


TECSHARE tends to present himself as if he were a spokesman for the oppressed, with typical pinko agitprop that portrays wrongdoers as mass-victims:


For an extra-special touch of some thing beyond hypocrisy, this TECSHARE quote is from a thread that I myself opened for the exact purpose of “pressuring yahoo6278 to stop supporting Yobit”—in which my OP, my follow-up post, and even the topic title all seem to nearly shout that if I were to have started mass-tagging Yobit advertisers while yahoo was running their campaign and wearing their signature, I myself would have tagged yahoo first as a matter of principle.  Perhaps someone forgot to wash my balls?

And this same principle is why I have told suchmoon to either ~Vod with ~nullius, or back off.  Lauda’s example of achow101 is also consistent with this principle.

I am not hiding behind Vod.  I can stand on my own feet; and indeed, at this point, I would independently stand on principle even if, hypothetically, Vod were less principled than he obviously is.  However, wise judgment requires first pursuing the biggest, toughest targets, as well as getting to the root of an alleged problem.  Arguendo, if my support of Vod’s tag is wrong, then Vod’s tag is wrong:  Start at the root of the problem before rattling your sabre at me.  Whereas I will not be cowed by the threat of exclusion—especially not when the same threat is not also made against a 5-digit UID with one of the highest trust weights, whose tag it is that I so happen to be supporting because it is right.

(The same argument also separately applies to my support of Lauda’s tag.  I am only picking on Vod because suchmoon includes him.  Sorry, Vod.)

Me thinks you have abused trust for so long, you are starting to believe what you write.

Hint:  You can't read my mind.  I have to dumb down my English so you can understand it.

You have been using the trust system as a tool of retribution.  Hypocrite!


You mean my scam busting?

You know very well you were tagged for doxing and supposedly reporting OGNasty to the IRS no matter how much you want to pretend it was for another reason so you can pretend to be a victim and not a victimizer. You among all people on this forum have no business criticizng anyone for abuse of the trust system with your years long history of abuse of dozens if not hundreds of people.

Like you did with me, hypocrite.   

AKA, I disagree with you and you don't like it, and you are willing to use the trust system as a tool of retribution for daring to disagree.

Thank you for clarifying.

What about somebody who has malicious, dishonest motives other than simply outright stealing money?  For a concrete example, I have oft observed (including earlier on this thread!) that high-intelligence scum usually prefer becoming politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc. to being low-grade scammers or street criminals.

Many such people will execute perfectly correct trades with you—even for millions or billions of dollars.  Is it wrong for me to label some large, perhaps large majority subset of that group as untrustworthy and likely to harm people?

That is only a conceptual example, for the purpose of illustrating my point—though I must observe that in DT politics, TECSHARE’s general behaviour is what would be expected of a moderately shrewd low-grade political jobber.

That's incorrect. I didn't say that every trade deserves feedback or that trust ratings must be based on trades, and I don't believe the wording on the trust page requires that. Positive or negative trust ratings may be based on other facts as long as you can show either that the person is unlikely to scam or that trading with the person is high-risk. A successful 0.00001 BTC trade may not mean the person is unlikely to scam. A successful 1 BTC via escrow may not mean the person is unlikely to scam. Someone impersonating another user may be deemed high-risk preemptively.

TECSHARE is still not high-risk.

Your premise of “excessive confidence and absolutism” is incorrect—as is your assumption that I do not correct myself when I err (as inevitably occurs sometimes in mortal humans).  You don’t know me very well, to rather understate the matter.  But the point is moot, for I am not wrong here.

[Substantive edit:  ...except in an embarrassing typographic error and inadequate proofreading in the topic title.  Err though I did, I do know how to spell “quelle”.  I hereby apologize to France.  See?  I correct myself.]

---

^^^ THIS.  The facile granting of positive trust shows the worst poor judgment short of actual malice.  That is no grand discovery on my part:  It merely ancient wisdom of the type once upon a time called “common sense”.  Any intelligent person over the age of 30 knows IRL to damn well distrust the judgment of people who trust others with foolish, childish ease.  And on the forum, ~ exists for exactly this purpose.

I find it interesting that, objectively applied, suchmoon’s proposed standard (which, pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding, is just that and no more!) will allow either positive or negative feedback based on a 0.00001 BTC trade—but will disallow any feedback at all based on such non-trading-related honest or dishonest behaviour as can have an extraordinary real impact, for good or for ill.

That aside, part of the deeper problem here is that the Reputation forum is dominated by those who are most vocal about trust decisions that they dislike.  Those mostly fall into two categories:  Principled people, and whiners who got smacked with well-deserved negative trust.  Now, which of those will complain about lightly-given positive feedback?  And which group is far more numerous?

---

Indeed.  TECSHARE will not hereby exercise even the slightest influence over my actions—not directly, and not indirectly.  However, given some unexpected help, he has inadvertently succeeded at wasting my time that I had allocated for important tasks.

---

I duly apologize if I misinterpreted you amidst a spirited debate.

As to the subject in itself, I do not care to argue it further.  My position is clear, and will not change.  If you choose to exclude me over that, then I will look to see if you consistently exclude others on the same basis as you state; and I will be very sorry that DT manipulator TECSHARE managed to troll you into helping assuage his fear of what will happen to poor, oppressed scammers and other wrongdoers if/when Nullius the Terrible gets into DT.

Again, that's not my standard but something you agree with when you post negative trust. At the very least you gotta be able to explain how trading with the person is high-risk.


That was genuine. I do think you're smart. Smarter than me most likely although that's not saying much. Don't let a disagreement make everything I say look suspicious.

If that is a concise statement of your opinion, then please feel free to ~nullius—just be sure to ~ everybody else who issues any positive or negative feedback for any reason not meeting your extremely narrow standard.  Starting with all makers of the feedback that I was supporting.

Further discussion is unwarranted, when I have clearly stated the conditions for my removal of my “counter”:

---

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.  To the contrary.

Now please, let’s not insult each other’s intelligence with “I know you’re smarter than that” backhanded compliments.

Anything else I could say to your latest post would be a rehash of what I have already said.

Ask theymos to remove the word "trading" from the description of red trust and I'll reconsider my POV. Until then your use of negative trust indicates to me that you're either misusing it or that your judgement is flawed if you truly think that TECSHARE is high-risk in trading.


Come on now. I know you're smarter than that. Let's not insult each other's intelligence by resorting to fallacies.

Is TECSHARE really high-risk in trading and why?

So, you would make unavailable a useful and necessary tool for what I, and no doubt others, regard as one of the most important forums (together with its virtual sibling, Beginners & Help)?

I suggest that before you say such a thing, you should spend some time fighting anti-Bitcoin pseudo-technical FUD, technical scams such as brainwallets, and all-around bad advice.

The forum is not only for trading, you know.  I myself have never yet traded with the public here; although I may someday, I did not originally come here for the purpose of making money!  I came to the Bitcoin Forum founded by Satoshi, for the immediate purpose of engaging in technical discussions.


If your extremely narrow trading-forum trust feedback standard is harmful to the rest of the forum, I suggest that “that's a bad custom for the rest of the forum”-

What’s next?  Bringing back “Risked BTC amount”?  And/or limiting negative trust feedback to violations of a written contract?  Well, that is why we now have Type-3 flags.

---

Note re my “assertion” about Dev & Tech:  It is not a written rule.  Just one of those things that you will pick up if you post there regularly for at least a month or two, check the feedback on other regulars, and see what the smart people are doing.

---

Nobody is trying to push you into anything.

You are trying to push me into removing my support for several tags which include negative feedback left by somebody on your explicit inclusions list.  I am advising you to apply the same standards without bias:  Either ~ both of us, or neither of us.  To do otherwise would show poor judgment, at best.

Others here have defamed me as having “frivolous feedback”—which includes feedback left by a staff member who is one of the most highly-trusted, widely-included members of the forum, plus by other tech-forum regulars.  It has been pointed out to you that if you agree that that is “frivolous feedback”, then your tilde key will start to be quite busy if you uphold your own purported standards.  Nobody is trying to push you into anything.

I don’t plan on going the route of being pushed into removing feedback is correct according to my own judgment.  I will also not be pushed into letting you set a peremptory standard for trust feedback, and then force me to argue according to your exact demands.  If I choose to further spend my own time explaining feedback that is self-explanatory, I will not do so on those terms.

Please feel free to make your own independent decisions—as I will make mine, independently of you and everybody else.

Still waiting on my certification of mental illness from your doctor...   

I don't plan on going any route that you guys are trying to push me into. It's not my obligation to fix every incorrectness on this forum or to engage in some sort of affirmative action so that God forbid someone isn't praised or punished exactly the same way as someone else.

Let's just stay on topic for now. Try to convince me how TECSHARE is high-risk to trade with.

His rating on nullius (which is how I derived my question to begin with):


I'm don't think he'd remove it, his rating on shorena is also (per your standards here) wrong upon inspection.

---

I don't want to drag achow101 into this and my belief that he would refuse is based on my understanding of the person. If you plan on going via this route, then I can bring you a very extensive list of users that you'd need to inform and/or later exclude..  and it would be even worse to do this just to some of the users and not all of them  

Hypothetically: if he's posting frivolous trust ratings - he should be informed about it. He's probably a reasonable person and might be simply mistaken. My comment was based entirely on nullius' assertion that it's a "custom" on D&T. If true that's a bad custom for the rest of the forum. I haven't looked into any of that myself.


Assuming someone would continue posting frivolous trust ratings after being informed that those ratings don't meet the "unlikely to scam" or "high-risk trading" thresholds - that's not sound judgement, regardless of their technical expertise.

So, thus far, suchmoon proposes (either explicitly or by unavoidable implication):


Who’s next?  How far will this go?  It is not exactly a winning argument, if you want to keep anybody with sound judgment in DT.