Topic: Trust System Abuse By Nullius - page 7. (Read 5674 times)

I have not traded in forum accounts in probably 4-5 years, and about a year ago proposed the banning of the sale of forum accounts. I was also on DT and the subject of smear campaigns around the time I was on DT. This was when being on DT was much more exclusive than it is now. Nice ad hominem attack though.

Here is a trusted account seller. Voice of reason. A public role model.

Seeing how the events have turned out lately, I don't really see any valid reason for the red trusts on your account anymore.

I think you should report those people who gave you red trust to theymos, for trust abuse.

As far as I know you are an honest account seller. You even sold a DT account... you are that good at your job.

I think your chances of becoming a dt1 member has increased in the last few days, a lot. Maybe you'll even become a staff member some day...

Shine on!

Where did I force "private information to be public"?

There is no private message feature on the forum. If you agree to keep information private, you should do so and you shouldn’t try to strong arm the disclosure of private information, nor to strong arm someone into vouching for private information.

I  don’t think a reasonable person would believe it is not safe to trade with techshare. To my knowledge he doesn’t have any trade complaints, he is not taking steps to have larger amounts of other people’s money at once and appears to take steps to be transparent about terms of his trades. Most of his negative ratings are about personal disputes in which nothing of value is involved. I don’t particularly like Suchmoon, and I find it hilarious to see her on her heels when not supporting the most powerful side in a dispute after year of her brownosing any and everyone in power who are involved in a dispute, but she is right about the rating (not about the forcing private information to be public). Techshare may have viewpoints or opinions that others might view are “bad” but they do not nearly reach the level that makes him dangerous to trade with.

When PMing with a user I often explicitly state that I expect my PMs to remain private and they are not to be published publicly without my express permission, but I don't always do so.
This is almost always followed with a response such as "Of course they will remain private and I expect the same." as if this is a well known common courtesy, but I admit that it is not a hard fast rule or completely adhered to by all.. The reason I state it at times is it ends the opportunity of interpretation otherwise by either of us..

That's why I in my last post here I added "if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private" because without such a statement of requested privacy sharing PM without permission is just a low blow dick move, but after such an agreed upon request of privacy to later breach that agreement I absolutely consider a breach of trust.. If any user that made this agreement with me later published my PMs without my permission they would most likely be getting a red tag from me depending on what they used my PMs for..

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive and I do not want to dislike you..
Rather I feel sorry for you and would like to avoid debating with YOU even over your own posts, but anyone else that uses or agrees with your non-factual posts are fair game..

I agree, it is a loophole around what should be common practice, but making a statement of expected privacy closes said loophole..


Not to me.. I may very well tag someone for breaching such an agreement with me, if an agreement was made thereby closing the loophole..

If nullius shared "sensitive" information with SM it is likely he asked for it not to be shared, thereby closing the loophole..
I can't know that though, but just the threat on its own is greasy..

You come here and post lots of rambling incoherent and pedantic spam hoping no one cares enough to read your screeds, never actually justifying any of your actions, and just hope people believe a decent reply is buried somewhere in your bullshit. Then you act like you are above replying and walk away. You have made it clear you are using the trust system simply to punish people who say things you don't like anyway and fast tracked yourself to irrelevance, so thanks anyway.





Ah, threats, very becoming of you. Clearly a stable genius. Do you even care that nothing you say even makes sense or is all that matters is you feel that there is enough of a tangentially related reference to the topic to get around being removed as off topic? Don't answer, I already know.

As far as published PMs, lets ask the person who sent the PMs I published... oh wait I am on their trust list last I checked. You care more than they do and you make no sense as usual with your accusations and threats. I have a reason to be in this thread... you are just the dingleberry that clings on to it hunting for peanuts.

Damnit, I guess I'm wearing the dunce cap for the remainder of the morning.  

But, my disagreeable side wants to argue that even the phrase "personal message," while not directly implying privacy, the implicity of such should be regarded, if for no other reason than the demonstration of respectable behavior.  


   
I was under the impression that a Jedi craves not these things.  

It's actually a "personal message" and if you send something to someone, particularly unsolicited, you shouldn't start with an expectation of absolute privacy for a number of reasons, some of which don't even depend on the recipient (for example PMs often get forwarded to e-mail, so there's that).

Then there is the actual content, for example if someone sends me a plan to scam someone I can't guarantee I'll keep that private. On the other hand, I can't think of a plausible (even a hypothetical) reason to disclose any of the PMs that I got from or sent to nullius so I'm somewhat surprised that he thinks otherwise but whatever. I don't think I sent him any of my secret world domination plans.

If trust is only for trade, then why are we tagging account sellers?

Techy, you have shared PMs without permission, right?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51275111

Listed as a neutral on your profile.  Do you think I should change it to red, hypocrite?


________________________________________________________________


If it actually IN YOUR OPINION then what is more important to you?   Techy endangering trades by behaving untrustworthy, or your dislike of me?

It seems self evident, implied by the terminology used to described the missive, and directly by the nomenclature itself, i.e. "Private Message."  Perhaps such a simple phrase isn't pedantic enough to avoid being misunderstood by nullius?

@nullius, see what I did there?  That's right, I'm making fun of you for being a verbose, arrogant twat who lacks the "English-language literacy" to understand why it's fucking called a private message.

That sure does sound a lot like an opinion. Rather arbitrary to make this accusation isn't it?

That's okay - I rarely interact directly with anyone on this forum any more, and don't rightly know how I keep getting dragged into these disputes. Did some joker put a label on my leash that says "PULL FOR DRAMA"? In any case, I do think you're overreacting a bit and you're definitely out of line in publishing PMs. There's no need for that. (Especially if, by your own statement, that would "compromise your investigation". Is your quarrel with suchmoon really worth that?)

Hey cryptocunt, you try two hardy pretend notttalky the inglich good.

He already posted a short bit of my PM up there.

I didn't explicitly request it to remain private so it's a moot point at best.

I would consider that quite untrustworthy behavior indeed, especially if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private, or reasonably assumed so.. It could even be construed as trade-related danger IMO..


Why do you merit this shit that you know damn well is false?
I mean, unless you don't know..

I think nullius will be prevented from dt1, I noticed already strange red reason given. Such moon sshould be the one to listen to. He is the best advise for how use the trust system. Follow him and his ideas understand if they not a scam or try to scam then not abuse with red your powers. You break the value of warnings. Nullius stay away from DT choice. I think he is doing what he believe is good but nullius border eccentric. Not offence

lauda and family negative rates and creates flags as they wish, not that a portion of them aren't true but they aren't even a bit as fair as they trying to make themselves look.

I'm not aware of anything that would call for a red tag.


Not sure what you could possibly prove by posting PMs publicly, other than the danger of communicating with you.


Actually I do like your true colors. A lot. I prefer honesty whether it's intentional or not.

Lovely tangent, still no word on high risks of trading with TECSHARE.


Demanding me to address some "points" sounds an awful lot like cryptohunter but if you can remind me what I must address I'll see what I can do for you.