Pages:
Author

Topic: Trust System Abuse By Nullius - page 8. (Read 5692 times)

copper member
Activity: 630
Merit: 2614
If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!
January 30, 2020, 04:53:31 PM
Liar by implication.  Dishonest.  Contemptible.

Statistical evidence of success (and/or withholding knowledge) =/= arguing from authority. It's again one of those times, one we had last month. The rating on Kalemder will stand. Don't waste time arguing this, move on to other parts of this situation. Thanks.

It's been 4+ months since the referenced events, what's the rush to tag him now and not wait until you're ready to un-withhold the knowledge?

suchmoon is aware of a part of my nonpublic evidence on Kalemder, because I revealed to her a carefully measured portion of it.  It is despicable for suchmoon to attack Lauda over this when, at the baseline, she damn well knows that such evidence exists and has had forthrightly explained to her the reasons for withholding it.

I revealed more to Lauda than to suchmoon, because Lauda is on my “trustworthy” list; suchmoon was on my “probably trustworthy” list which indicates slowly, cautiously building a greater trust.  (On the same grounds, I revealed more evidence to suchmoon than to Foxpup, just because I have rarely interacted directly with Foxpup—trust needs to be built; that’s nothing against Foxpup there.)

suchmoon, you are pushing it to the point that the public will have a valid interest in my dumping our PM discussions into this thread as evidence of what is really going on here.  That may compromise an investigation which is as yet in its early stages.  The damage would be limited (even if probably irreparable), because I was sufficiently prudent to only entrust to you a limited amount of information; and I need to weigh that against permitting you to sow discord in public and rake Lauda over the coals for something which you yourself know about—which you know she can’t talk about, for the reasons that I stated to you.  In effect, you are knowingly obstructing justice for the sake of your desire to Win An Internet Argument.  You despicable, spoiled brat, seizing the advantage when you have sufficient information to reasonably infer that Lauda cannot defend herself here without violating my trust and harming the forum!



Exclude me then. A blind fool with poor judgement throwing a tantrum - sounds like no one should want such a person in their trust list.

Now if you're done making this personal maybe you can show us what high risks exist in trading with TECSHARE.

You always liked it (often ++liked it) when I dished that out at Quickseller.  But I see you do not like it so much when you yourself show twisted illogic and evasion similarly to how he did in those old threads, and I treat you accordingly after first having extended you the courtesy of an almost stupid level of patience on my part.

I am impartial.  Do not expect special treatment.

At least, Quickseller eventually grew up and started retracting some of his wrong statements.  I suggest that you learn from his example, reread this thread, and correct your own course.  Start by squarely addressing the points that I have stated, instead of ignoring them and repetitively trying to force me to argue on your terms—as you just did yet again, right here.

That is simply my advice; and it is sound advice which you may, of course, freely ignore.

Since my life is too valuable to waste on flamewars with no objective other than “arguing on the Internet”, the worst that can happen (the worst—from your perspective) is that I decide that the DT system is broken by design, I mostly withdraw from Reputation in favour of more productive tasks, and meanwhile, I think about perhaps some long-term way to make the forum trust system obsolete.  “Cypherpunks write code.”

Thus do I finish what you started.



A General Note on Lauda

I have requested that Lauda remove me from her inclusions list (with the understanding that, since I requested to be disincluded, it would not be improper for me to ask her to reconsider that, at her discretion).  This is on pragmatic grounds, as a precaution against another “prison break”.  She has a huge number of tags that protect the forum; if I have suddenly become a lightning-rod, I have no desire to let that be an excuse for others to advocate ~Lauda.

Those who want to see my tags up-top should include me directly.

A not irrelevant aside:  To date, excluding off-forum transactions with some well-known businesses who happen to have active forum accounts (e.g., ChipMixer), Lauda is the only member of this forum with whom I have risked BTC.  And that was a big chunk of my life savings—i.e., it was precious money that I could not afford to lose, regardless of the absolute amount.  Lauda is trustworthy—for trade, and otherwise.



Reply to johhnyUA

I know that gifs is not welcomed on this forum, but i had to show how all of this drama with Vod and TECSHARE looks like for another people

That may be how it looks for those not involved, i.e., “bad optics”; but I suggest reserving judgment when you do not know the details.  Moreover, Vod is only involved here because TECSHARE attacked my support of Vod’s tag (among others’), and suchmoon picked that up and ran with it.  Understanding this requires reading only the first two posts of the thread.

Nullius, please stop to create another drama. After your return there wasn't any useful topic (maybe except Project Anastasia and some thoughts about Chipmixer and privacy) from you (if we compare with your first visit here). Only drama on drama which riding a drama.

Agreed, at least, that I could make better use of my time.  Indeed, but for suchmoon jumping so eagerly on it, I probably would have flatly ignored this thread just as I ignored TOAA’s thread against me.  I do not reply to troll threads unless they are exceptionally amusing to stick a fork in, which this one wasn’t.  Unfortunately, suchmoon is not a troll (though she most excellently fed one here).

It is not the first time that I said so in this thread:

And if your reply to my patent olive branch, which I pointedly concluded with a hint to others, is:

I don't really give a shit

...then I cannot but say, “I am sorry you feel that way”, and express my sincere regret that I wasted hours of my time attempting in good faith to talk this out with you, in public and in private (upon your contact to me and not vice versa).  TECSHARE could not have gotten that from me.  I would probably have flatly ignored this thread but for you, but for the considerable respect that I had for you, and but for my belief that you would do your “deescalation” for your own part of a dispute that you yourself not only ~escalated, but substantially ~created in the very second post on this thread.  —Or that at least, you would “agree to disagree”, as I have been willing to do all along.  You well know that I disagree with your personal standard for tags, and that I discuss it civilly or just “agree to disagree” if you are not waving ~ in my face.



amishmanish

Thoughtful commentary—I mostly agree.  I will only reply on the points where I have something to add or debate.

The fault with this "principled" side lies that they are too clever for their own good. They are passionate about their quest to clean up and target the scammers. They find people abusing the system and all that righteous fury spills out as colorful, sarcastic language that cuts deep. "Pajeet, Third world bottom feeder, all your cousins and uncles" are the oft-repeated generalizations. When you use that language you risk biasing each and everyone of those people against you.

I think that’s an unfair mischaracterization.

I am probably one of the most “politically incorrect” people on this forum.  If somebody acts like a dumb pajeet, I will call him one; and it is not for the sake of political correctness or “liberal” virtue-signalling that I say:

The Bitcoin technology is easy to duplicate.  But the Bitcoin social movement cannot be duplicated.  It exists because everybody agrees on Bitcoin.  People all over the world, of every race and nationality, of every religion, of every political opinion, all agree on Bitcoin.  Their agreements or disagreements about anything else are irrelevant to Bitcoin.

The banks and their global financial system are destroying this world with their death-grip on money.  Monetarily, at least, everybody who is not them is in this together—blond, blue-eyed Iceland just as much as Indonesia.  Cyprus and Turkey are (cough) not quite friends; but Turks should care about Bitcoin for exactly the same reason that Cypriots should care about Bitcoin.  I will even go out on a limb and posit that Bitcoin is as good for Palestinians as it is for Meni Rosenfeld, and vice versa.

There is only one Bitcoin.  It’s for everybody.  And it is even beneficial to your interests if Bitcoin also used by people you don’t care about—or by people whom you dislike—or even by people whom you hate.  Indeed, it is beneficial to you if your enemy is invested in Bitcoin:  That means he cannot attack your financial freedom without also attacking his own money.  E.g., I have noticed that the white-pajeet wannabe-Nazi schtick Daily Stormer uses Bitcoin.  Well, they can hate Jews as much as they want; but they may have a slight problem insofar as they are relying on the individual Jews who so happen to contribute to Core development directly or indirectly.  How much do they value the one thing that protects them from being financially censored out of existence?  I suppose enough so that they aren’t adequately warning their followers about the terrible Jewish element in the Bitcoin world.  What, cut off the flow of donations?  Oy!

Bitcoin may not make some impossible Utopian “world peace”; but at least, it will make everybody agree on something:  Bitcoin!

The drama in Turkish section is a typical example of this where people actually considered it natural to include their family and exchange trust ratings/ merits to "progress" in the forum. This seems childish to the lone wolf at best and unethical at worst.

It is also bad for Turks who actually care about Bitcoin, rather than only about ranking up and chasing a “lucrative bounty”.  Of course, that is not my only concern about the Turkish local; but my concern about that is sincere, and not some on-the-spot posturing to exude a political correctness that I don’t have and don’t want.  Quoting one of my own PMs to suchmoon:

as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.
Nullius may have been inactive for sometime but I have read enough on the forum to know that this allegation of "change in language, demeanor" is pretty juvenile. Nothing has changed with Nullius. He is still the same old difficult and fun to read person that he always was.

Too bad, Manish.  That dumb pajeet TECSHARE lacks your English-language literacy.

Whereas I prefer the term Chandala, as Nietzsche used.  Is he that low?  Nah.  You think so?

PS: I forgot to add, "Win Big with the Lucky Cat"...LOL..Smiley

Thanks; but after having tried logic repeatedly here, I think johhnyUA is right—or at least not wrong, insofar as this “drama” is indeed draining my time from more useful activity both on and off the forum.

And the Lucky Cat has the right idea...



Closing remarks:

[...]


That would be it. I'd appreciate that nobody wastes my time by either replying to me, or PM-ing me links to inside this thread. I'll be doing my best to ignore it as it's fruitless.

Almost-same here.  Unless I have a very good reason to reply further on this topic, I will now start ignoring it as I would have to begin with.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 30, 2020, 04:07:23 PM
This is untrue. Yes, I oppress criminals and dishonest people. Can't scam anymore and cheat the systems with your account? Boo fucking hoo. It's a system of trust not a system of trade. My rating on TECSHARE Is not going anywhere and will be rewritten, expanded as more deceptive and untrustworthy behavior occurs. I may need to open a whole thread  because there are too many references as is, let alone in the coming future.

The resources of this forum may be insufficient to fully organize the trust abuse by Techy.  A wiki might work better.   That's how I'm organizing the *massive* amount of illegal activities by the person who stole 500 bitcoin cash from this community.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
January 30, 2020, 01:33:10 PM
Suchmoon has been through most of that drama and has found refuge into simplifying the system. "Trust is only for trade, easy-peasy".
This is untrue. Yes, I oppress criminals and dishonest people. Can't scam anymore and cheat the systems with your account? Boo fucking hoo. It's a system of trust not a system of trade. My rating on TECSHARE Is not going anywhere and will be rewritten, expanded as more deceptive and untrustworthy behavior occurs. I may need to open a whole thread  because there are too many references as is, let alone in the coming future.

Closing remarks:

They are just that, examples, which serve as evidence for the claim that the introduction of the flag system/change in the trust-system had to have had a weakening effect on the requirements and not the other way around. I have spent time looking for some examples rather than telling you "Hey look at all the years until now" in hope that you see how things really always were.
The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines..
I will be choosing the latter option..

This claim is now also backed up by theymos. Therefore, I hope that people start spreading this to be the truth and not the reverse (that the requirement for negatives is stricter now - because it is not!).

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:
  • Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
  • Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
  • General deceptive behavior.
  • Many, many more..
However, it also confirms that deceptive behavior is in fact more than appropriate for a negative because it relates to a person's trustworthiness - and that's related to trading. Now, some people might take a illogical route and argue that trolling itself is deceptive behavior. Sure, you can look at it like that. I can also say that stating that the Earth is flat is deceptive. However, that would be moving the goalposts just for the sake of destroying the argument (as we're talking about actual deceptive behavior) and a display of behavior you should not be tagging for - re: opinions on subjects (which is different from slander/libel/etc. - see quote again).
Some people may seemingly misunderstand my rating on OP, but that's because they already have a conclusion about it before reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of his opinion or his trolling (for which he's long overdue for a ban). That's irrelevant.


Exclusions aren't personal attacks, simply a disagreement of opinions, and sometimes a compromise in an imperfect system.
That is how it should be, but is not how the state of things are unfortunately. Most of the time they are seen as personal attacks. How many times did someone get excluded because they first excluded the other person?

That would be it. I'd appreciate that nobody wastes my time by either replying to me, or PM-ing me links to inside this thread. I'll be doing my best to ignore it as it's fruitless.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
January 30, 2020, 12:10:14 PM
Suchmoon has clearly stated that he will give trust ratings based only on trade history.

Did I? I don't think I did. Actually I'm pretty certain that I didn't say anything particular as to what I would base my trust ratings on.

What I did say is that red trust should adhere to the wording on the trust page, i.e. show that "trading with this person is high-risk". Likewise positive trust should explain why the person is unlikely to scam.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1159
January 30, 2020, 11:49:38 AM
This has all become so absurd. The whole trust picture has become debatable because in the last iteration , Theymos truly "democratized" trust. (probably after changing his own opinion about how "decentralization" is not the answer to everything). That was when we witnessed the mass uprising with all the "oppressed" people red-tagged by Lauda et al coming to realize their strength in numbers.

Suchmoon has clearly stated that he will give trust ratings based only on trade history. Nullius wants trust system to imply trustworthiness in terms of overall judgement and principled behavior. If humans were perfect and we all had the same levels of self-respect, everybody on the forum would be making independent judgement on trust (Whether trade based or opinion based) and it would all come down to a stable equilibrium sans any drama.

What happens in reality is that the world gets divided into camps. There are the ones sticking to their self-held principles/ judgement trying to be the "lonely wolves". They get targeted by the "swarm" of people whose opinions are generally determined and swayed by their common interests on the forum (bounties/ referrals/ earning). Theymos once said that he considers it one of the success stories for the forum that it enables people in developing countries to make money.

The fault with this "principled" side lies that they are too clever for their own good. They are passionate about their quest to clean up and target the scammers. They find people abusing the system and all that righteous fury spills out as colorful, sarcastic language that cuts deep. "Pajeet, Third world bottom feeder, all your cousins and uncles" are the oft-repeated generalizations. When you use that language you risk biasing each and everyone of those people against you.

The swarm on the other hand consists mainly of the followers and a few leaders. These leaders generally have a separate sense of "sharing the goods" which doesn't always matches with the work-ethics of our lonely wolves. The drama in Turkish section is a typical example of this where people actually considered it natural to include their family and exchange trust ratings/ merits to "progress" in the forum. This seems childish to the lone wolf at best and unethical at worst. To the swarm, its just how things work. Through a system of references and propping up one another. The problem with the swarm is when its leaders try to use "democracy" to settle scores. They easily utilize the pain caused by the aforementioned sarcastic insults to target these people.

This has been going on for a long time and I suppose nullius missed a lot of that drama. The trust system has to kindda evolve into a state where the Swarm leaders and lonely wolves can agree to a certain set of ethics. Suchmoon has been through most of that drama and has found refuge into simplifying the system. "Trust is only for trade, easy-peasy". It can only be good that both him and Nullius are being forced into a discussion so we can once again have something more than simple commercial interests drive this forum.

as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.
Nullius may have been inactive for sometime but I have read enough on the forum to know that this allegation of "change in language, demeanor" is pretty juvenile. Nothing has changed with Nullius. He is still the same old difficult and fun to read person that he always was.


PS: I forgot to add, "Win Big with the Lucky Cat"...LOL..Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
January 30, 2020, 07:55:42 AM
@Vod & @marlboroza

Thanks, you two are doing more to discredit your own accusations than I ever could. Keep it up.
If you want to talk about accounts Vod and marlboroza create new thread.

As I said, I have no idea what you are talking about:

I highly suspect this user is an alt of one of the usual members that is involved in a lot of this drama
Are you trying to say that nullius is your alt account? Huh

as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.
1) when that long period of inactivity happened?
2) what has changed in their language?
3) what has changed in their behavior?
4) users are not allowed to hold the same opinions or something?

Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.
Provide evidence of "CLEARLY being used to game system with alts" for exclusion purposes.
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1849
Crypto for the Crypto Throne!
January 30, 2020, 07:06:49 AM
#99
I know that gifs is not welcomed on this forum, but i had to show how all of this drama with Vod and TECSHARE looks like for another people





P.S:
Nullius, please stop to create another drama. After your return there wasn't any useful topic (maybe except Project Anastasia and some thoughts about Chipmixer and privacy) from you (if we compare with your first visit here). Only drama on drama which riding a drama.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 29, 2020, 11:57:46 PM
#98
Cool story bro. Leave a rating because you don't like what I have to say, then just refine your lies to further justify it. Your rating still has zero basis in fact.

As does yours Techy.   Wink
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
January 29, 2020, 11:42:03 PM
#97
I'll be rewriting my feedback on OP in the short future to clarify that it's not related to trolling, because it isn't, and never was, and it seems that a lot of people are confused by it. Dishonesty and manipulative behavior (both or which are per definition a user's actions, not a user's opinions) are more than appropriate for negative ratings on DT1 and DT2.

Thank you for the discussion.

Cool story bro. Leave a rating because you don't like what I have to say, then just refine your lies to further justify it. Your rating still has zero basis in fact.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
January 29, 2020, 11:22:26 PM
#96
I'll be rewriting my feedback on OP in the short future to clarify that it's not related to trolling, because it isn't, and never was, and it seems that a lot of people are confused by it. Dishonesty and manipulative behavior (both or which are per definition a user's actions, not a user's opinions) are more than appropriate for negative ratings on DT1 and DT2.

Thank you for the discussion.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 29, 2020, 09:04:23 PM
#95
Thanks, you two are doing more to discredit your own accusations than I ever could. Keep it up.

Stopping your trust abuse could do more to discredit our accusations.

You always default to dishonesty for some reason.  :/
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
January 29, 2020, 09:02:06 PM
#94
@Vod & @marlboroza



Thanks, you two are doing more to discredit your own accusations than I ever could. Keep it up.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
January 29, 2020, 07:34:10 PM
#93
Counter for counter, that's new for sure.

Counter to counters by figmentofmyass, BayAreaCoins, and eddie13. [...] The feedback provided by by Lauda, Vod, and marlboroza is factually based[...]

As I stated before I highly suspect this user is an alt of one of the usual members that is involved in a lot of this drama as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.

Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.

Ok, so you want nullius to be excluded because you think they are alt account of one of accounts above and by simply elimination of users who tagged you VS users who countered tag, you are saying that either Vod, Lauda or me used alt account nullius to game system. Well, nullius is not my alt for sure, so you are talking about Lauda or Vod, unless you are talking about someone else. Your topic is very confusing. Who is nullius?

Please provide more information for this request.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 29, 2020, 06:57:44 PM
#92
Yet even more unsubstantiated claims.

Theymos has stated you don't belong on DT, probably because you misquote him constantly.

Not unsubstantiated at all. 

Now the question is - why does he distrust you, but trust OG, who has stolen from the forum, and investors.  Did you not give him a cut of your loot?  Sad
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
January 29, 2020, 06:54:22 PM
#91
Theymos:
"I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective...

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant.  But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive."

You are going against the wishes of the admin, which is not suprising, since he knows you don't belong on DT.  Also notice your ability to change the subject title and write what you like!

Thanks.   Cool

Yet even more unsubstantiated claims. That is your MO, shit out as many accusations as possible, substantiate nothing resting assured that people will claim you are a "valuable member" of the community and excuse your endless abusive behavior.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 29, 2020, 06:51:18 PM
#90
Theymos:
"I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective...

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant.  But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive."

You are going against the wishes of the admin, which is not suprising, since he knows you don't belong on DT.  Also notice your ability to change the subject title and write what you like!

Thanks.   Cool
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
January 29, 2020, 06:45:10 PM
#89
None of the accusations made against me by Vod, Nutilduh, Lauda, or you have any basis in reality whatsoever

My rating is 100% correct - you manipulated your way into DT.  Even the Administrator of this forum believes you have no place there.

None of the feedback you have left is factual.  Believing you are a doctor and can read minds should also be a concern to anyone trading with you.  :/

As with all of your accusations against me here and in the past, you have zero substantiation to support them. You have been rightfully tagged for doxing and using government agencies as a weapon to fight your petty grudge matches. Speaking of the administrator of this forum, here is what he had to say about your actions:


Theymos:
"I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective...

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant..."


You have abused the trust system against me several times in the past as documented here, refusing to substantiate anything, and being forced to remove your frivolous abusive ratings. Your current rating is equally unsubstantiated and just an extension of your past abuse of the trust system.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 29, 2020, 06:28:08 PM
#88
None of the accusations made against me by Vod, Nutilduh, Lauda, or you have any basis in reality whatsoever

My rating is 100% correct - you manipulated your way into DT.  Even the Administrator of this forum believes you have no place there.

None of the feedback you have left is factual.  Believing you are a doctor and can read minds should also be a concern to anyone trading with you.  :/
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
January 29, 2020, 02:41:31 PM
#87
As the thread stands, it seems the outcome must be a choice between the following:

5. No more red tags or flags for opinions.

I can only dream.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
January 29, 2020, 02:33:15 PM
#86
Also, DYOR =/= following my reference.

since i can't find any evidence, i can only speculate. i don't see anything obvious besides perhaps him having trust inclusions that you didn't/don't like (like tecshare and Vispilio).

you're essentially arguing from authority, say
Statistical evidence of success (and/or withholding knowledge) =/= arguing from authority. It's again one of those times, one we had last month. The rating on Kalemder will stand.

isn't that just saying "trust me, i've been right before"?

Seriously? Those arguing against it: Find a single, objectively non-deceptive, and objectively non-malicious reason for this and I will reconsider my tag (even though this is a single example of many).

personally, i add people to my trust list where i want to see their feedback + those they trust by default. i exclude people for the same reason. is that provably malicious or deceptive?

I'm still looking for a good ref to evidence against Kalemder..
I don't understand it..

+1
Pages:
Jump to: