Bitcoin Forum

Trust systems are always hard or impossible to do right. The default trust list system here makes things tough. At the very least, I think it would need some changes to how things are calculated and shown to people by default.

Currently, it's widely known that people are scared to say anything negative to people in the default trust list. It should never be like this. Some DT/DT2 members are redrate/negativetrust -happy, and can be said to abuse the position they have. This also shouldn't be like that. This affects majority of users: almost everyone is using default trust settings, meaning people trust DefaultTrust with the depth of 2.

Getting negative trust (and/or rating) from a DT1/DT2 member easily ruins account, or at the very least damages the general view of it. People generally treat others with red trust as untrustworthy, even though that may only be the result of some petty outburst by someone in the DT list. This happened to me, so I'm now being vocal about it. I used to have +48 green trust, now I have -1 orange trust. My business here has taken a hit due to this, especially when dealing with newer users.

What happened?
Shortly, I pissed off DT2 member called Vod. He was rude against me, called me a scammer and so on, so I red-rated him as I don't trust people who call me a scammer. Later he contacted me about it and told me that he doesn't see me as untrustworthy. But, he threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating. I didn't obey, so he red-rated me. So I told him that I don't trust him and I guess he took it very personally leading to this shit storm. Remember, most people are afraid to tell these people negative things about them. In this whole chain of events, which was forced to be public, Vod made illogical and contradictory statements to justify wrecking my account. He also blatantly and provably lies in his reasoning in his rating towards me, and in his public comments about this. But what can I or anyone really do about it? People are afraid to call him out. And people don't want to get into a shit storm.
More info about this in thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.0 and message https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847 with a try of a summary of the events.

I know I am of course not the only one being abused like this. There are plenty of examples. I am escalating this further, because this appears to me as clear abuse and I think I could do (or get people to do) something about it. Of course anyone technically can rate anyone how they like, even based on complete bullshit, but community/someone who can should act on it. Even when the abuser has done good deeds most of the times, like Vod.

All in all, I think these sort of things have considerably negative impact on the forum. Community, be it staff or regular users, should act on it. I know it's a messy job.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

Edit (Aug 1):
Changed topic from Trust system abuse to Trust system abuse / DT2 member Vod is provably dishonestly rating people

You don't trust people who call you a scammer ? Similarly, maybe he doesn't trust people who don't trust him ? I don't really see any issue trust abuse with his ratings.I mean he just did what he was suppose to ? Like he even gave you a warning and you ignored it ? The problem is not the rating, it's the account that is coming from.I'm sure had it been from someone not on the DT you would ignore it ? Honestly, if I was you, I would think before leaving  a negative feedback to a DT member.

If someone tells me that they don;t trust me I'm sure as hell I wouldn't trust them either.I still don't get it how do you see this as a trust abuse ?

That's not the case.For instance, if I call The Pharmacist a Asian Hating turd don't think he will give me a negative feedback and use his DT powers ? That would be a trust abuse lol

(* no offence to you Pharmacist you know I like you)

You got red trust because you bid on your own bidding thread? Right...

If that is the only case yes your "red trust” is very unfair. @vod misused his powers clearly.

You did not use an alt account or any thing there is was no bad motives behind your bid. He gave you red trust because he did not like it, this is unfair.

Your own bid means you want to sell above 0.72BTC. And every participant knew it’s you... this does not count as scamming.

I’m with you on this @vod should take back red trust.

---

Yes I agree that bidding on your own bidding thread (is it right or wrong) can be discussed, but giving someone red trust because of this is unfair.

How bidding on your own auction is a fair behaviour ? Did you even read the thread ? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what powers or misuse mean.Do you even know what does auction mean ?

That's the entire point of the trust system.If I don't like the way you did something, I will find you untrustworthy and leave you a feedback.

Regardless of the bidding issue.You should have the sense of reality that is,Vod would give two shits about what you think considering his long history of giving appropriate feedback.

Unfortunately the administration has been very much hands off on trust disputes as of recently. This has been the case for a good several years now.

This has resulted in a very small number of people having an outsized amount of power within the forum economy, and very little discourse as to if any disputed trust rating is appropriate or not. Often conversations about trust ratings start and end with "~he doesn't trust you therefore the rating is legit~".

He told me he doesn't think I did anything untrustworthy. And got pissed when I didn't want to change my rating. Resulted in him red-rating me. He gave me a warning? Sure, you mean when he threatened me?

Of course if it was not from DT member, and therefore not affecting my account, I would've not gone to these lengths about this. I've been vocal about abusing that has happened towards others, which has previously *almost* resulted in me getting a wrecked account.


This particular DT member acted disrespectfully towards me, in public. He gave me all the reasons to not trust him in any trades I would do with him. I don't fear rating him red. Regardless, I were open to drop my rating as I hadn't been trading with Vod anyway. But when he started threatening me, it was obvious that I shouldn't trust him. In any case it shouldn't end up in this sort of abuse. It turns to be abuse when it affects the general view of an account and is based on outburst, lies and retaliation.


Read what happened, please. As I mentioned, of course people can rate each other how they like. That doesn't mean abusing couldn't happen or isn't happening.


I did not get red trust because of bidding in the auction I held. Vod told me he saw nothing untrustworthy in that. (Although later when his outburst happened, he changed his stance on this to suit his reasoning.)


Think about this for a while. Auction rules are same for all. There are different auction types in the world. It's common for auctioneer to bid on the auctions in my country. It's very uncommon in these forums. Anyway this has been hashed elsewhere, e.g.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25936463#msg25936463

Anyway that is offtopic for this thread. Vod told me he doesn't see my actions regarding that auction as untrustworthy.


I've been around for 7 years. I know Vod has been here also for a long time, and I acknowledge that he has had a significant positive effect on the forum. I know most of his ratings are good. This thread is not about that.

Digaran, where are you? I am waiting for you to talk about abuse.  ::)

---

Anduck, so you think it is abuse because you find vod untrustworthy but you don't want vod to see you as untrustworthy? Your account is ruined how exactly? You don't participate in signature campaigns, and if you want to trade with someone, there shouldn't be any issues. People have different opinions and some DT members are DT members because of their opinions. If you want their opinions to be biased, then they shouldn't be on DT.

---

Also people can leave you a negative rating because they find you untrustworthy, and that is not abuse. An abuse would be when you have something they want and they want you to give it to them, blackmail sort of.

Probably begging for 1 merit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4390788.msg39170667#msg39170667)

I’m not here to discuss Vod’s history... what I felt I said it... you don’t like... ignore and move on...

Giving him a red trust because he try to bid on his own bidding is unfair.
 
And if you think trust system is for your personal likes and dislikes you are so wrong my friend. Trust system was added to highlight “scammers” and help community to avoid trades with such accounts.

Tell me if OP tried to scam someone?

His rating affects the general view of my account while mine towards him doesn't. Also, please read the sources. Also, Vod bases his rating towards me on publicly verifiable bullshit, if that matters.


My account is now seen as untrustworthy. This is effective in trading boards of these forums. It has no real effect when doing business with people I've done business before, or old-timers in general, but it has a significant effect when doing business with newer people in the scene.


I was threatened, and the rating itself lies about me, and is effectively result of me not doing what Vod asked me to do. In addition to all the worse things, he threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating. Read the sources linked in the first post for more information.


DT members indeed have additional responsibilities like that.

I've seen this issue before, but anyone could say anything online it is a common practice way back cypherpunk days probably it didn't matter what I say in this thread but getting involve in an unnatural behavior for bidding on your auction is quite unpleasant to the eyes of others thus I deem to resolve the issue you need to have a confrontation with Vod that's why you created this thread but somehow I think I've read this sort of issue before and it didn't bring any good agreement.

Lastly yes bidding on your auction is not against the rules however I think you need to start the auction first on your bid so ppl will know that you are participating in the auction not saving the last bell.

Neither did digaran - Check out his trust page and maybe you will get a fair idea of how trust system works https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=806776

I just finished reading...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.0 <=== User Vod abusing DT position (petty red-rating with provable lies as a reason)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847 <===Re: User Vod abusing default trust list position

I will try to stay as much neutral as I can, I do not want to take any prior knowledge about what vod has done previously or doing currently.

So the root of the case is...

vod gave you a redTrust because you were bidding on your own auction.
Do you think morally it's right to bid on your own action?

-This is an excuse mate.

In your conversation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847) with vod an honest confession might change the whole situation instead you made a choice to claim yourself innocent. You dragged this into you now you are suffering for it.

Is it too hard to confess a mistake especially when you know you are not morally right?

He’s a special case :)
Btw I think his trust case is unfortunate too  8)

I doubt that.


Vod stated: "I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy", regarding the auction. This is clear all over the reputation thread you said you read.

The auction in question is not really related as you can see. It's just a tool used by Vod, as there's not real "untrustworthy" stuff he could find about me. Anyway, I'll address it a bit,
If you feel that auctioneer bidding on auction is unfair or wrong in any way, that's just your opinion. Auction rules are same for all, including the auctioneer. Auction styles and rules vary around the world and the Internet. Something uncommon here is common elsewhere. Auctioneers often bid in their auctions in my country. Elsewhere maybe differently. I have already told people what I think about this in here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25936463#msg25936463). FWIW, the auction happened over two years ago and I've done bitcointalk-common auctions since.

DT members are moderators of trust system. they say that trust is not moderated but DT members are moderating it individually without following any common rule, guideline.

Default trust ratings shouldn't rely on individual opinions, that would be the definition of moderating the trust system directly. administration has given the absolute power to DT members and they wouldn't care if DT members are using their power as a personal tool to dictate their own agendas.

What would happen to a DT2 member if they bully others and if they abuse their power? nothing would happen not unless somebody in a position of power steps in. but somebody in a position of power is not doing anything about it, so DT2 members would think that what they are doing is right.
They will continue to operate like this and nobody would stop them, because nobody actually cares.

About this case: Vod should tag you for bidding on your own auction and not because he doesn't trust you. did you bid on your auction with your main account? who does that anyways?

I read the sources,I think Vod was sort of right on leaving you a negative feedback on the first place because you bid on your auction. He gave you the benefit of the doubt and changed the tag,but when he changed it back again,is something I don't expect that someone like Vod would do. No one should be forced to add or remove their ratings just because the other party changed it,be it for a DT member or a non-DT member. But the trust system is not for saying comments like " I don't trust you",it is for "This person is a scammer or I highly believe that this person is a scammer". Abuse is not the right word here,misuse is. Abuse only works if someone gains something from the other,in form of blackmail. So both the parties here are misusing the system.
If the newer people don't understand the situation,you can always use escrow. Bidding in an auction != Scamming. If people don't know that,better stay away.
DT members shouldn't threaten non-DT members. No one should threaten anyone for a rating. Is this for real?

---

I can't believe people do so much shit about a damn trust rating. For the love of god,move on. If you don't trust someone,don't. Nobody cares enough to give a fuck,unless you're rich ::).

Yes it is for real. It's all in the sources linked. I asked Vod whether we could just drop this shit, as he told me he doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy and I also do not need to have rating showing my distrust against Vod. I don't trust him, but it's up to me if I announce it to the world. My guess is that pissed him off (when I said I don't trust him regardless). You may be right that better term is misuse. It's semantics, though.

It was a rhetorical question,with intended sarcasm. Nevertheless,what might have pissed off Vod more,is that misunderstandings lead to further misunderstandings and now after you lit the fire(unintentionally maybe),you realize everything has gone. And sometimes people don't let go of their pride,so I guess you have to stay with the rating. :-X

I read the first topic until this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37469621#msg37469621). When I saw you said, "I've already learned that is the norm in these forums." then I did not bother to read further. The 2nd one was only limited to your post (this one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847)).

- You noticed that the viewers/bidders were unhappy by your action. If I was there you would see me angry too. I never experienced or even hard that you can bid on your own auction. It just does not make sense. You can set up a reserve price.

Can anyone help me to find the rule where it says bidding in own auction is ok in this forum? I tired finding it but no luck yet. Thanks in advance

What I am seeing is cultural difference if it is true that you can bid on your own auction. Like I said you would also find me angry if I was there and my common sense would say that you are doing illegal activities in your own auction. 

We would not see anything (that happened later) if you would not place a self bid in your auction.

I personally do not like the practice to leave red trust to someone as because s/he left you a red trust at the first place. The first person left you the red trust because in his/her judgment you DID something wrong but without acknowledging the wrong or a valid explanation, when you are responding with a red trust from you then obviously things will start getting harder and nasty. You are, "Eating the fruit of your lips". I am sorry mate.

I was blocked by Vod after he red-rated me. Instantly. No way for me to reason with him in private. He isn't willing to do anything here unless it starts affecting him too. That means, when I get on DT or someone in DT red-rates him, etc.

Oh, I'm a pure misanthrope and Asians are just a subset of all homo sapiens.  *lol*

I don't hate Asians, not even Filipinos.  Their presence on bitcointalk is another story, but it's not all of them.

Now about the Vod/Anduck dispute.  I read what was said between the two in the other thread, and the bottom line is that they don't trust one another--and if Anduck bid on his own auction, that seems like it's a solid reason on Vod's part regardless of what he'd previously said.  Bid shilling is pretty much the worst thing you could do in an auction.  It's basically stealing money from the real bidders. 

Whatever the case may be, this is between Anduck and Vod and I'm not sure what Anduck is trying to do here.  Even if Vod is totally in the wrong by leaving him a neg, it would be one bad feedback in a sea of good ones and I doubt there's anyone here willing to jump on Vod to pressure him to change it.  It's just politics; it's not going to happen, whether you agree with it or not.

I'd also add that Anduck's account has a lot of positive feedback and it's not ruined by any means.  I wonder if Vod's feedback has actually prejudiced any noob from doing deals with him or if Anduck is just projecting that outcome in the future.  But if he did indeed bid on his own auction....people need to watch out for that.

It would have been nice if you gave him a chance to reconcile. You mentioned he contacted you before giving the red trust and I am sure it took a lot of guts from his side to ask you to remove it. I did not read the whole enchilada but if he was friendly maybe you could have taken a step back and start trusting him again. I am fairly new to the forum and few times took abuse from few bullies around here. It is funny how bossy people can get! I understanf that many have been around long time and the last thing anyone here should do is to try to hurt each others business. My advice would be to contact him with kindness and hope for the best. I amsure you two can dolve this in a great way that ypu will both benefit 😉🤞🏼🙏🕯

However it doesn't matter if the OP doesn't trust Vod or tag him red, what matters is that Vod could distrust the OP and tag him red for everybody to see. if this continues then people would stop trusting DT2 tags. we need to tag people if they are really trying to scam. bidding in own auction is a form of scamming IMO.


So is it OK to inflict damage on other people's reputation just because a DT2 member is a good guy and has helped the forum? you could say that is OK if somebody had several accounts but what if somebody is only using one account? I'd say that Vod should tag the OP for bidding on his own auction and not for anything else.


What do you see to be wrong about that? I see Vod with an unfair advantage over the OP, let Vod to be the only one with power, I'm sure there will be no abuse when you empower a few over everybody else. <sarcasm>

You should provide a quote for this.   ::)

This is why I don't endlessly converse on and on about why I leave valid ratings.  People tend to twist, deceive and outright lie.

I'll just assume the rest of your threads/post are going to contain content of similar "quality". 

Nobody is bid shilling here. Read about auctions to understand that there's nothing weird in auctioneer bidding in the auction. Even though it may be or sound weird for you. Think about it for a while. Threatening, lying and harassing on the other hand.. You seem to have extremely light stance on that stuff.

If you had read the sources, you would know by now that Vod red-rated me after threatening to do that if I didn't change my rating. His "reason" to do it had nothing to do with the auction. He told me, as you can see in the sources, what his reason to red-rate me was. So there's the reason Vod told me, and the real reason which is the earlier threat to do it.


As I've said various times, I acknowledge that Vod has been (and continues to be) a strong positive for the forum. However, that doesn't change anything about what's going on in this case. Vod is abusing his position in this case. You're right: people refuse to act, because their account will be wrecked easily, unquestioned by others. Let's try to fight abuse even though it might lead to no resolution?


There's nothing shady or untrustworthy in auctioneer clearly bidding on his own auction. It's that simple. And it's uncommon here. If you genuinely think that it's justified to negatively rate over uncommon practice: the said auction happened over two years ago, and apparently it's "alright" for Vod to bring up fresh negative trust for that.

All in all, it certainly seems like Vod did not rate me because of the events of the auction. Most obvious reason is that Vod rated me because he outburst at me, and had to justify it somehow. It would be clear if you read the sources.


It's not my fault you're not reading.

You're twisting, deceiving and outright lying as everyone can see, if they read the linked sources. Wish people who comment here actually did read, but it seems like it's not happening very much.

Anyway, once more,
Linked source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847), reference #2.
I'll link another sum-up: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37714469#msg37714469
To avoid more dodging, here's your private (later published) message to me:

To make it extremely clear for everyone, this means: "If you don't change your rating, I will rate you red" or "You have to change your rating to neutral or I have to change mine to negative" subtly put.

You're taking people as fools. It's working while it should not, which is sad.

What's wrong with the other thread, why do you need a new one on the same topic?

You lost your standing in this dispute when you negged Vod. BTW neg for neutral isn't even the correct retaliatory exchange rate. You should have posted 15 ALL CAPS ratings.


Did you ever contact the DT1 members?

The one in the Reputation board is about Vod. This thread in Meta is about trust system abuse in general, and specific example of it happening. Maybe we could try to think of ways to improve things.

This is a way to contact with DT1 members in addition to the whole community.

Yes, the tag is there for all to see--but Vod gave a good reason for it, and I don't believe this is just a personal spat between Vod and Anduck.  If that were the case then yes, the feedback would be unjustified.

Don't twist my words to set up straw man arguments.  I did not say that the good outweighs the bad.  My end conclusion was that it's politics that keeps people from speaking up against a wrongly-left feedback if that feedback was from a highly-trusted member.  I did not say that this was right, but again I don't think this describes the situation here with Vod.  I don't think his feedback was left erroneously if Anduck bid on his own auction.

Yep, and the one-sided conversation will go on as long as you allow it.  I usually hang up on telemarketers, too.

It's very clearly a personal spat, as you call it. It has nothing to do with me bidding on the auction. This is clear if you read the sources I've linked. I know the event timeline is a bit messy, but that's how these things always are. Anyway, it's clear that Vod misunderstands me in an illogical way (explained here (ref 5) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847)) -- maybe on purpose, maybe not, and rates me negative, because of that, according to him. Looks like on purpose, because he still hasn't done anything to correct this failure. Simply, the reasons he has given to negatively rate me are based on illogical misunderstanding (on purpose or not) and provable lies (explained in the sources). Shortly, his rating reason itself is complete bullshit.

It's not against rules for auctioneer to transparently bid on the auction. In my opinion, there's nothing scammy about it either. I asked theymos too, and he agrees with me. I understand the initial reaction may be "ooo, that's scammy" if it's an uncommon auction practice for you. I know it's uncommon in these forums. However, it's a common practice around the world. It's kind of a hidden reserve price.

In any case, this auction in question happened two years ago and even Vod himself told me he thinks I did nothing untrustworthy. Because that's how it is. So maybe we could drop this "it's a valid reason for negative rating" as it's not. Vod rated me negatively, because I pissed him off by not doing what he wants. He simply fulfilled his threat, so why on Earth are you trying to find some other reasons? He states it clearly.

Are you kidding?  It's shill bidding; it's dishonest; and the biggest auction site in the world--eBay--doesn't allow it, and that's for a reason.  It's inherently unfair, and I don't care if Theymos agrees with you or not.  He's not an auctioneer.  He's a forum administrator who tolerates scams by inaction and allowed the forum to become a spam pit because it brings more traffic.  

People on this forum have some shady notions of how auctions and escrow are supposed to work.  That's why Quickseller has so many supporters for his "self-escrow" scamming.  It's crazy that people don't see how dishonest these practices are--but not surprising on this forum, where every other member is a scammer.

The feedback you got is well-deserved.  End of story.

Well, shill bidding would require usage of alt accounts or asking others to bid on an item to fake interest. It's semantics and I don't call auctioneer clearly bidding on the auction as shill bidding. Neither does Ebay. For examples of auctions where auctioneer bidding on auction is common, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill). Also check out https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy/shill-bidding-policy?id=4353#section2 (https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy/shill-bidding-policy?id=4353#section2). The Wikipedia article states: "One Proxibid auctioneers' website states, "At the request of the auction company, this auction permits bids to be placed by the seller or on the seller's behalf, even if such bids are placed solely for the purpose of increasing the bid."". Ebay link states that bidding on the auction with another account is prohibited, as that's shill bidding. Auctioneer bidding on the auction on the other hand is not shill bidding as no shills are used and it's very transparent to everybody who's bidding. As I said, it's a form of a a hidden reserve price and is not considered untrustworthy behavior in general. I see your point too, and I very well acknowledge the benefits of e.g. stating clearly that a reserve price exists, if it exists. Etc.

So it's not dishonest, as you claim. It's not unfair in any way either -- auction rules are same for all. You could state that it's unfair, because auctioneer is the only one aware of hidden reserve price existing, if it's not disclosed. But what is unfair in that, really? At worst, it wastes peoples time when they bid and don't know about hidden reserve price. Auctioneer only knows that he will bid unless the hidden reserve price is met, if auctioneer wants such to exist. I think you need to re-think your logic regarding this. Vod did, too. :)


Self-escrowing is untrustworthy and dishonest behavior, as that kills the whole idea of escrow. This thread is not about scams people do.

I understand it is hard for people to distinct between "subjectively unpleasant" and "dishonest/untrustworthy". Most of the time, people are too proud to change stance after thinking further and realizing how things really are. Vods feedback towards me is not deserved, is reasoned with complete bullshit lies, and is abuse of the trust system.

If you click on the source for that Wikipedia quote, it links to an auction site that no longer exists.


Ebay does not make a statement regarding bidding with your own account, as that is physically impossible on the Ebay platform. Not explicitly forbidding it does not equal tacit permission.


I'm sorry, but this is feeble evidence. Regardless, we are dealing with Bitcointalk forum, and not Ebay or any other auction site, and the general consensus on this thread and others is that self bidding is shady behaviour.

Proxibid seems to exist. If you're interested, you can go look at their website: https://www.proxibid.com/
This is just something I found from Wikipedia. I don't know more about this company or whatever they do. Also, that is not related to this thread very much.


Correct. We were discussing shill bidding. Which is also pretty much offtopic.


What is feeble evidence? And of what? Since when did "general consensus" (according to you) specify what is untrustworthy, dishonest or shady? I ate the bait?

That sounds quite unfair. Not disclosing the reserve price or even the existence thereof makes people waste their time and perhaps miss other opportunities. I can see how that makes Vod think you're not trustworthy.

Having said that, this is not even your actual problem. Your problem is retaliating with a butthurt neg against a factual neutral rating AND now whining how the trust system is abused. Do you really not see the blatant hypocrisy of that?

Vod told me he doesn't think I did anything untrustworthy regarding that auction. Please read the sources linked in first post.

Vod threatened me to negatively rate me unless I changed my rating. He provably lies about our conversation. He is being intellectually dishonest by claiming to "understand" my words in the illogical way. How does that sound? Actions done by a trustworthy person?

I've heard of various other cases where DT members have threatened to wreck accounts if things didn't go the way they want. It's not really a secret here.

Somehow it was fine until now... but if you keep speculating “FUDs” without any proofs... you should be expecting another negative trust (from DT member) sooner or later.

What do you want me to prove? Have you read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847)?

Account wrecking by DT members has never been fine. I've been vocal about it before. Now I'm more vocal as I am the target.

Linking to a site that doesn't exist, and a site that does not allow your behaviour, is feeble evidence for your defense.


You are the one who began the argumentum ad populum by linking to random auction sites as a defense.


The mere fact you have to keep proclaiming this suggests that even you accept that self-bidding is not 100% fair.

I've made up my mind on this issue.  Due to continued and growing dishonestly from this user, my feedback will be permanent.

I do not trust someone who consonantly lies.
I do not trust someone who bids on their own auction.
I do not trust someone who feels such action is OK.

You're being dishonest and everyone can see it. I am not at all surprised about your actions anymore. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847

You outburst at me, threatened me, lied about me, lied to me, slandered me, blocked me, and now you're lying to everyone who trusts your word. People are afraid to speak up against you, because their accounts will be wrecked if they do it. I've now heard this from various people in private. You're ruining your reputation when you abuse your position like this. Do you like to be feared? Do you like to live in the illusion where everything you do is always right, because you never hear anything negative back? That is petty and childish behavior, and certainly not something to be expected from a DT member.

Well, clearly Vod now thinks you're not trustworthy regardless of what he may have thought or said in the past. His feedback seems to be factual despite how you think he arrived to that conclusion and I certainly don't trust your interpretation of the events.

Your inability to reconcile your own retaliatory feedback with your own claims of trust abuse is quite telling. You'd like to eat the cake and smear it on Vod's face too.

His feedback is not factual. You can verify this. What part of my "interpretation" do you not trust? Well, you don't need to. It's all in the thread: our private messages as they were communicated, and event timeline is not disputed. You can do your own interpretation based on the raw sources if you want.

The user dragged this into him and now he is paying the price. S/he still is not accepting that bidding on his/her own auction was not normal action!

Anyway vod made up his mind and I see his points are valid.

---

Update:
I have 100% support for the last two points

I always read my untrusted feedback.  :)

I understand you think I am petty, childish and immature.  I feel the same about you, as well as your proven dishonesty.  

I guess we will have to entertain the forum with your lying BS for a while until you finally cry yourself to sleep.


You bid on your own auction.  Factual.  You said you don't believe it is untrustworthy  Factual.   ::)

Vod lies. Provably. I've not lied about anything whatsoever.

I have not lied about anything. If you think otherwise, feel free to post my lies here. You told me you don't see my actions as untrustworthy. You changed your stance when your outburst happened. Keep on with the insults, it really makes you look better.

I've responded to two examples in the last few posts where you lied.

You must think this forum is full of idiots.  

I don't want to justify about this since I do not know him personally even If I knew then it's too hard to justify. But his last two points were 100% true.

This forum is full of people afraid to voice themselves about clear DT abuse that is happening here.


Yes, I bid on my own auction. Yes, I don't see it as untrustworthy. When have I ever claimed anything else?

If I was you, OP


Click Post.

I wrote that in my feedback  You said feedback was not factual.  You lied.

(I originally thought Anduck has posted this, but it turned out to be an example message from another user.)

I always say, when you lie, you need a good memory.  :)

I did a mistake as I did an uncommon thing. It was two years ago. There is nothing untrustworthy in what I did whatsoever. There's nothing immoral or unethical in auctioneer bidding on the auction, transparently so everyone knows and sees what's happening. It's called hidden non-disclosed reserve price and is a commonly done thing around the world in various auctions.
Vod has harassed me, abused his position and keeps on blatantly lying about me to whoever listens to and trusts him.
I am not licking Vods ass because he is threatening me.

Your feedback to me states: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter."

No scamming happened. You're lying.

I state there's nothing unethical in auctioneer bidding on the held auction, when it's done transparently and without obscurity. It's called hidden non-disclosed reserve price and is common practice around world in various auctions. This claim is the only non-lie in your rating.

I have not admitted any "lying" to you via PM or in public. You're lying.    (you misunderstood me, I tried to tell you, you blocked me. Maturity points to you.)

Bidding on your own action is unethical, as you admitted a couple quotes above.

I also understand any person I negative trust will go out of their way to call me a liar, even though I am very honest.  :)

I have not admitted anything like that. Put a direct quote here, where I say bidding by auctioneer in an auction is unethical.

You're provably dishonest. No way out of that. I tried to fix your misunderstanding peacefully, but no go.

Did you say this or not?

No, I don't remember saying such. Looks like a fake quote me. Vod, wtf?

Bad choice of verb from Suchmoon.

Do you remember POSTING the following words at anytime in the past, whether you deleted them or not?   :D

I would draw everyone's attention to the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code), which states in section 2-328 (4) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-328):

If the auctioneer knowingly receives a bid on the seller's behalf or the seller makes or procures such a bid, and notice has not been given that liberty for such bidding is reserved, the buyer may at his option avoid the sale or take the goods at the price of the last good faithbid prior to the completion of the sale. [Emphasis added]

You did not provide advance notice, therefore you acted unlawfully.

Source? I vaguely remember something, but not that. I've not deleted any of my posts.

It's right here. You quoted the post by shahzadafzal:

Very funny. It's early hours here, so forgive me. :) I always quote people who I am replying to.

Vod, you want to keep this ridiculously escalated up? I am pointing out: you base your actions on misunderstanding, in my view. I already told you you misunderstood me heavily (and illogically), but you refused to listen. I still have strong opinion that you're a net positive for the forum. I am saying this once again so there's no confusion about that. This is strictly about DT position abuse.

To emphasize this: The latter quote quoted by Vod is not my words. It is fake quote done by Vod, and apparently was meant as a joke.

Let's try to not derail this thread more.

I'll add my .0000002BTC for what it's worth.
Bid shilling is a shady (at best) act, I don't care how you try to paint it. In your opinion, it's valid but to many others, it is despised and will/has severely hurt your credibility.

Having a hidden non-disclosed reserve price, or "auctioneer bidding on the auction" is uncommon here. It's common around the world, though. There's nothing shady in it, if you carefully think about it. Auction rules are same for everyone. It's just a matter of not disclosing that there's a reserve price. In the end, you either meet the reserve price or you don't. It's a nice bonus to know that there is such, in advance. I agree on that.

This seems to be something very cultural, as people from different cultures seem to have strong opinions about it. You can read about various auction styles around the world to learn more. You can also logically think about what happens when an auctioneer bids on the auction held, when it's done transparently and not via shills (which would be very shady). My logic tells me there's nothing untrustworthy, shady or immoral in it. Some may say it's unpleasant surprise and waste of time for the bidders to learn about the non-disclosed hidden reserve price, if it exists. I somewhat agree on this. After all, auction rules are same for all. When everything is done transparently and everyone knows that the auctioneer is bidding too, what makes auctioneer bidding shady?

At this point, I doubt people will believe you if you say it is raining.

Not a fake quote by Vod - not meant as a joke.  I do not view scamming as funny.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39391773#msg39391773

I will deal with the OP of that post to determine the legitimacy of the quote.
Looks like the OP was suggesting a post he believes Anadduck should make.  :/



I do not - but I doubt you are done with your tantrum.  :/

See above. You will never convince me bid shilling is ethical. Anyone that does this deserves to be discredited. By your process, you win/win every time. You either keep the goods or get the price you want. Why not just start at the price you want or set a reserve. What is the purpose of an auction in this case?
You can try to justify it all you want but in the end, it is not justifiable and unethical.

I was trying to solve it. You blocked me. Tantrum part is yours: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847). I am being vocal due to this abuse.

User shahzadafzal clearly stated "If I was OP, post this" and presented a ready text to be posted. It's not a quote said by me and nobody (except you?) is hinting that either.

My logic: You keep saying your logic, in your opinion etc etc but can you see your logic is completely different than rest of us here?
is uncommon: You were dealing with common people so you made them upset.

Sorry mate. There is no point to write back and forth here. It's good that you admitted the mistake and thanks for that.
Your case is very weak and you are not getting anything from here. Bad luck for this but good luck for the future. See you around.

 

Starting at the price at "buy now" -price, or setting a reserve would have the same "win/win" outcome, right? Again, nothing untrustworthy or shady by thinking about it logically. The only downside of having non-disclosed hidden reserve price is that bidders may be wasting time, or may not win an auction due to a reserve price. Think about it: What is changed when auction rules state that there's a hidden reserve price? How is it different to not disclosing it? Keep your mind open, never say never.

Bid shilling is different, and means that seller is using others/alts to bid up the price.


For example to find a price level of certain item? Various purposes, really. How is that relevant anyway?

Vod abusing his DT position, threatening me, lying about me etc., and general abuse/fear of voicing opinions/account wrecking done by DT members is the case. Not that auction.

Alright. I think it's time to address the key facts , and certain things which could of been misinterpreted. It's incredibly difficult to keep up with all the information which has been presented, and remembering it all when presenting an argument. I'm going to try my best to address the issues, and my personal opinion about the facts, and accusations. I'm not a lawyer, and it seems that the self bidding is a somewhat complex issue. So let's try, and look at this diplomatically instead of claiming abuse.

First of all let's address the topic subject; "Trust abuse"

Vod left you the feedback of: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter." Ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1399824.0

So let's dissect this:

"Scammed" this is actually subjective. I've already voiced my concerns about the practice of auctioneers bidding on their own auctions, however I'm willing to concede that in some auctions this is an accepted practice. Although, having said that it's normally specified in the original terms that the auctioneer can bid themselves. Let's make this clear that this isn't a requirement in some jurisdictions, but more of a courtesy.  

This is all depending on the country/state you live in. In some countries, and US states it's prohibited to self bid, unless disclosed prior to the auction. So, depending on how you view this it's very difficult to know which laws/rules to follow when the forum is home to such a diverse amount of people with various different nationalities, and cultures. There's no one rule that we could possibly follow so it's probably better to follow your own personal ethics. I do believe Vod has likely followed his own ethics when leaving the feedback that he left.

In short. I personally would be willing to say that you haven't scammed anyone per say. TheNewAnon135246 was the one that maybe should have won the auction, and may feel that he was scammed, but they have been largely nonvocal to my knowledge on this whole thing. (possibly because it's since been sold to them)

Vod then goes on about it being "unethical", and that you do not believe it to be so. Well, let's just pinpoint he is saying "unethical", and not illegal. Therefore, this is subjective, and leaves a lot to be interpreted by the individual leaving the feedback.

Now, Vod could potentially back up this claim if he wanted (he doesn't really have to due to it being subjective) in saying that the self bid was made somewhat close to the end of the auction. Possibly in an attempt to: 1. Prolong the auction in attempt for higher bids 2. Not sell at the going price.

These two points could be argued further, because of your admittance that you should have set a reserve price or higher starting price.

Okay, so looking at the personal messages exchanged between the two of you I'm finding it very difficult to understand from a external point of view, and therefore can't come up with a logical, and accurate opinion.  There's one thing looking at messages, and another actually understanding them. None of us on the outside were there at the time, and therefore have no idea of the factors which may have played a part in the exchange e.g stress, tension, past dealings (you've previously claimed you ran into problems with Vod prior to this). What it looks like to me is that both of you may have been playing tactical tennis at first, and hoping the issue would resolve itself, but none of you were willing to make the first move. Maybe, Vod did by reducing it to a neutral, but you didn't think that was enough due to the word "scammer" in the rating. I'm not sure about this, and it's more of an assumption than anything else.

I know you tried to summarize the messages sent in one of your posts, but the thing is you've also included your personal opinions/explanations which lead to bias opinions being formulated.

If we were to look at the claim of "not factual" then the only argument I see is that the word "scammed" might be subjective, because you might get off on a technicality that self bidding is allowed in certain jurisdictions.  

My personal view point was made clear in one of my previous posts in another topic that I personally don't consider self bidding ethical if it's not clearly disclosed prior to the auction start. I also made the point that I wouldn't of had too much of an issue if someone wasn't already winning the auction, and quite close to winning it. I wasn't actually aware that self bidding was common practice when I made my reply a few weeks back.

I've since looked into it, but the consensus is that it should be disclosed publicly. Not legally, but as a ethical stand point I would agree. I expect you are willing to disclose this in the future, because you've repeatedly said that you acknowledge that it's generally not accepted, and you willing to disclose reserve prices etc.  

However, you did suggest here that the coin was sold to the highest bidder:

I'm not sure if you mean the actual high bidder which was you or TheNewAnon. However, even if it was sold to TheNewAnon this didn't seem to be your initial intention. I say this because you were accepting offers for the coin after the auction had ended. Unfortunately, I can't quote this effectively due to it being in a locked topic. However, anyone can read through the replies to verify this.  At this time the coin wasn't sold per your own words, and that you were accepting offers in PM.

Let's try to wrap this up as this is a headache to try, and digest and figure out what is factual, and what is fiction. Generally, speaking this isn't a problem legally, or anything like that. It's more of the personal viewpoint of the person leaving the trust. I would back up anyone that says self bidding without a disclosure is unethical. However, I'm prepared to admit that this is rather subjective, and could be easily be interpreted the other way.

However, at the end of the day it's up to the person leaving the feedback, and I personally don't believe Vod is abusing his power. Maybe, his feedback could be worded differently considering the technicalities mentioned earlier,but in all honesty This has escalated into a personal problem between the two of you.  

My personal view point is I don't consider what you did ethical. I think I've made that more than clear. However, I concede that you may have an argument that self bidding is an accepted practice. Although, this doesn't translate into being ethical. In cases like this I would personally consider past history, and attitude of the issue.

You have a good history in general, and would of probably been considered trustworthy before all of this. Your attitude is harder to determine. It's hard to look at the feedback you left on Vod, and consider whether it was retaliatory or not. You also seem to push the ideas that self bidding is legal, and is used in a wide variety of auctions. You've also conceded yourself that in future auctions you shall take on board this learning experience, and alter them by including a reserve price etc.

How would I count your words where you do not understand or try to realize that bidding on your own auction is no way ethical. Everything started from that auction. If the auction would never happen then you would never get the red trust from vod at the first place and we all would never end up writing back and forth here.

You are saying things against him same like the others who received negs from him. These types of actions are common. Your words are biased and not countable.

Read this thread. Read his rating. He is calling me a scammer and a liar. I've not scammed or lied. In my view, auctioneer bidding on the auction is *not unethical*. I simply don't see how it's shady or immoral. It's common practice in my country, and is simply a hidden non-disclosed reserve price. Auction rules are same for everybody! You're fighting for the auctioned item with everybody else. Shill bidding is *very* different from self-bidding. These are complex things anyway. Vod told me he doesn't see my actions regarding that auction as untrustworthy. He negatively rated me when I told him I do not trust him. It pissed him off. This is how I see it. All this "omg he self-bid, it's so wrong" bullshit is the only thing Vod finds about me, so he is using it to reason his negative rating. Read the linked source threads and even the raw sources (private conversation between Vod and me) and so on to grasp what's going on. Vod negatively rated me because he outburst at me after misunderstanding me illogically. It had nothing to do with this auction per se.

He is lying about me in his current rating towards me. I've not scammed anyone in any auction, and I've not lied to Vod in any PM or public conversation. Yet he claims these things to be true. This has been presented multiple times also in this thread. There's no way for Vod to defend himself as he's provably wrong, and he's too proud to admit to be wrong.

From the point of view of a legitimate bidder there is no difference between bid shilling and what you did. Your bid was intended to prevent the high bidder from getting the item and/or to drive the price up. Both shitty outcomes for someone who wasted time on your auction and potentially forfeited other opportunities due to being duped by your "hidden reserve". Your continued insistence that this can't possibly be unethical makes Vod's feedback seem quite solid.


It sounds quite relevant. If someone sees Vod's feedback and decides to not bid on your auction because it might be one of those fake price fishing ones - that's great I think. I'm a big fan of informed decisions. You're not disclosing these peculiarities in your own auctions so Vod is helping you out. Please thank Vod and move along.

For me, this is much more complicated than marriage issues. And I just born into this forum. In my opinion, it's all about red-rating and I think it's love. You both won't remove the love. What should we do? ???

You might find legitimate disagreement on this point. Why, specifically, is bidding on your own auction (in the open) unethical? It might not be the norm and other bidders might not like it, I'll give you that. But is there a specific forum rule? If not, we should look to brick-and-mortar auction customs.

I came across this blog (https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/can-the-seller-bid-at-auction/) that discusses the legal issues (with reference to US law):


It looks like there are cases where it's legal and customary for a seller to bid on his own auction. I imagine outside of the US, there may be jurisdictions with less restrictions on this as well.

As such, it definitely seems overkill to permanently tag someone over a first-time offense for this. It's impossible for anyone to be defrauded by Anduck's actions here, since it was done in the open. No one ever heard of a warning?

It's not against forum rules. However, this isn't evidence that it's ethical. Legality, and ethics are different. It just so happens the majority of laws are based on ethics. Judging it's ethics in relation to the forums stance on whether or not it's against the rules is a moot point really. The forum doesn't moderate scams for example which are certainly unethical.

I'm not comparing the issue here with scams, however forum rules or how theymos interpreters the matter really doesn't make a difference because he isn't the one that left the feedback. This is why these sort of cases are so complex when ethics are involved there's 'bout to be people who disagree strongly. We all have different opinions on several different matters. Some people may have opposing opinions on the death sentence for example, but none of them can be arguably proven right or wrong. It's the same case here in that it depends on the individuals reviewing the case. I have generally mixed feelings about this scenario, and normally offer the benefit of the doubt. Would I personally bid on his auction in the future? Probably not. But, I haven't added any trust rating for a reason. Although, I understand why someone would.

What is the goal of an auction?
Sell something to earn money/currency. When you win your own auction, what have you earned? Did you take the sale price from the left pocket and move to the right pocket? How is this earning money or selling an item?
Bid shilling is designed to lose an auction. This has wasted peoples time, time they could have bought the same item elsewhere. Time = money.
Post a  Reserve and let it ride and stop trying to move the focus everywhere but where it needs to be, or what the definition of "is" is.
Theymos lays out the guidelines but lets the forum set some standards and gives us plenty of freedoms here, does he need to set everything in stone?

Would it be ok to bid, win, and then back out of paying or pay less than the winning bid?

Since this topic is about the abuse of trust system, I'd like to remind you that I am a victim of abuse by suchmoon, marlboroza . according to KWH time is money, I have asked for money in exchange of my time by offering a service but suchmoon tagged me red twice, marlboroza has also tagged me for it. this is a clear sign of abuse, therefore I'd like to ask for assistance from the people in position of power in this forum.

Have you contacted DT1 members yet?

If I do contact dooglus and if he refuses to take any action, people would say that he is an irresponsible person. if he says that the tags on my profile are not valid and you refuse to remove them as you have already stated that you wont remove them under any circumstances and if he keeps you on DT2 regardless, he would lose his credibility and people would say that he is an irresponsible person for keeping you on DT2.

If he kicks you out from DT2, you'd lose your credibility and this forum could lose a potential useful asset. I am trying to give you a chance but you are unable to see it.

Only in cases of a forced sale, which this was not. See my earlier post here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39393051#msg39393051) for links to the relevant US law.

---

Or more likely, he'll see you for the raving loony you are, agree with suchmoon, and then maybe, just maybe, you could stop derailing threads with your nonsense.

Usually people who are deaf and blind can't hear and see the truth. I think God doesn't like you to see the truth so he has made you deaf and blind to it.

BTW, obvious alt account: o_e_l_e_o funny how you are the only one telling me that what I say is nonsense. this is the reason why people use alt accounts, they are cowards and want to hide behind their alts.

Nice! Who am I an alt of now? It was suchmoon and actmyname before. Can I be an alt of Vod this time? That would be fun to try for a while.

This is the behavior of DT2 members. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3853171.msg39418486#msg39418486 when they see that nobody is stopping them, they would think they could do and say whatever they want. free speech eh?

Again, you're the one refusing to take the action that could stop those DT2 members. It's almost as if you only want to complain incessantly and not actually resolve any real or imaginary issues with the trust system.

Blocking people is something DT members do much often after tagging someone. But I didn't expect that to happen for your case, because you're/were a reputed member of the forum. DT members should listen to the other parties and not block everybody after tagging,IMO.

Again, Vod was right in tagging you in the first place, because what you did was unethical even though it was slightly transparent. But he changing his tag just because you won't change it back,is not expected from a mature member like Vod. I want to hear more on what other people think on the recent events:

Vod changing his tag back to negative because Anduck refused to - Vod blocking Anduck- and clear misunderstandings from both parties.

I am trying to act neutral here, and both members have misused the system because its purpose is entirely different.

100% with you on this, now this have turned personal nothing else.

We all agree OP did not try to scam anyone and he was transparent in bidding on his own thread, although its subjective but still many of us consider it unethical.

Now Vod and Anduck should discuss it again personally on PMs, it's clear ego is hurting both parties. Vod should unblock him and should discuss with him again. They should know DT members or management is not going intervene since trust is not monitored. (Vod have advantage here being in DT2)

In the end you both are very senior members of the community,  be an example to us juniors... show big heart and you both should neutralize your negative trust.

If you are trying to act neutral, don't take words posted by Anduck as fact.  :)

After my last conversation with him, I took over 96 hours to make my decision to tag him. 

I've not lied about anything whatsoever.
I've not scammed anyone.

You, Vod, on the other hand, have lied multiple times in this thread alone. Fake quotes even, lol. Please show quotes where I lie or scam (and when Vod won't, could someone else please show the quotes?) You've presented nothing, because you are making false claims. I've presented several of your lies, all in this thread, and all the rest in the links in the first post. Grow up.

I believe bidding on your own auction is unethical.  I don't trust you as a result.

Any other questions? 

Your beliefs do not make it scamming, dishonest or untrustworthy behavior. You've proven none of your claims about me calling you a scammer, me scamming, me lying, me admitting lying and so on. You, on the other hand, have done several dishonest and untrustworthy things. I assume you're ready to remove yourself from DT2 due to all your dishonest and disgusting behavior that doesn't seem to ever end.

Why are you:
1.) spreading lies about me? (source: your rating towards me, all over this thread and this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.0;all).)
2.) calling me a scammer? (source: your rating towards me, all over this thread and this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.0;all).)
3.) claiming I've "admitted to lying"? (source: your rating towards me and these threads)
4.) threatening to red-rate me if I don't change my rating? (source: link, ref 2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847), PM conv. source here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761))
5.) faking quote? (source: here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39391887#msg39391887) and extra intellectual dishonesty here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39392947#msg39392947))
6.) reasoning your earlier lies/claims using your faked quote? (source: here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39392188#msg39392188))
7.) changing stance about self-bidding from "not untrustworthy" to "unethical"? (source: link, ref 1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847), PM conv. source here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761))
8.) basing your "conclusions" on illogical misunderstanding and refusing to be corrected about your illogical misunderstanding / refusing to admit to have illogically misunderstood me. (source: link, ref 5 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847), PM conv. source here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761))
9.) lying about the reason you rated me? (source: this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37487553#msg37487553) and this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37707812#msg37707812) contradicts these reasons (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39390698#msg39390698) and this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39391499#msg39391499))
10.) placing fresh negative trust using something that happened over two years before your rating as the main stated reason?
11.) abusing/misusing your DT position by placing unfair and dishonest feedback?

These are only the things I can remember right now. Could you start by answering to these questions? Please try to not be a jackass like you were here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37707812#msg37707812).

No, but being against the law does.

I don't follow the law of United States. I've asked theymos, the forum owner, about this, and he told me he doesn't see self-bidding as scammy at all. It's not against rules. However, as I've said multiple times, I haven't and won't be self-bidding since that *single auction that happened over two years ago*, because even though self-bidding is common in my country and culture, I understand the possible frustration and wasted time undisclosed hidden reserve price or in other words, self-bidding, can do.

This is off-topic anyway. Let's try to stay on topic.

Vod's belief is enough to post a negative feedback for you. Your belief is enough to post a negative feedback for Vod, which you have done. This is not a court of law, it's a community-driven/crowd-sourced/whatchamacallit trust system and Vod clearly does not trust you for a reason. I for one appreciate Vod's feedback as it tells me what kind of auction one can expect from you.

Given that Bitcointalk is hosted from the US, and the item in question was in the US, US law is far more relevant than whatever the customs in your country are.

This isn't off-topic - in fact it is the crux of the matter. Ignoring all the PMs, the he-said-she-said, trading neutrals and negatives and all the rest of it, you performed a dishonest act and were tagged for it. That's all that is relevant as far as I'm concerned.

All "he-said-she-said" is public and verifiable. There's not very much of that. I even linked all of it to you. So go and make your own conclusions instead of being a lazy ass still commenting here about matters you've not learned about. Only reason for you to ignore all the PMs is when you want to avoid the truth. Vod clearly stated in there why he negatively rated me and it has nothing to do with that auction he's talking about in his rating. If you actually read the sources, you'll learn that the whole auction thing is only a tool Vod is using to justify his actions. His actual reasons to rate me, told by him in various contradictory statements, is in the sources. Read it before commenting more nonsense. Dogs flying may in your opinion be "dishonest act". Nobody was scammed, auction rules were followed, forum rules were followed. It's your opinion if you think that something is dishonest. As you can see in this thread, people have different opinions about that. It's not even up to opinion really: no scamming happened whatsoever -- Vod claims (in addition to rest of his lies) that scamming happened. How many times do I need to ask you to read the provable and undisputed sources, the timelines and events of what happened, before commenting nonsense again?

What would you say if the winning bidder in your auction refused to pay or paid less than the winning bid?

If you win an auction, you're obligated to pay what you bid unless auction rules state otherwise. Try to see the difference between events happening during the auction and after the auction. While auction is running, your bid may be outbid by anyone. Getting outbid is not unfair. When the auction ends, highest bid wins.

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread. Let's give Vod some space to reply to the questions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493).

I have read in depth the post where you outline the timeline of events. It is peppered with your own personal views on the statements, which are completely subjective, so I would hardly call it "undisputed".


A scam does not have to be successful for someone to be tagged as a scammer (e.g. alia (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1764044))


And I'll go with what the law says - the practice is forbidden.


I can understand that you want to shoehorn this discussion back to the who-called-who a liar, who-threatened-who, etc. as you feel you have a stronger case there. It seems you accept that self-bidding is a shady practice, which is why you don't want to talk about it.

Vod has already replied at least a couple of times. It doesn't look like you'll get anything new out of him or change his mind.

So you're saying that it's not ok for the bidder to back out of the deal. But it's ok for the seller to back out of the deal (via shill/self bid). Sounds kinda lopsided. Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

Hashed to death already. 

I don't trust you because you committed actions I find unethical.

Any new information?   

Feel free to tell me how I am wrong in anything in that summary. In any case, you can read the raw sources (available in that same thread) and end up in the same or similar conclusions. The statements are what they are. If Vod tells me that he will negatively rate me if I don't do what he says, that was changing my rating, I see that as a threat. That for instance. Someone could come and argue that it's "gentle proposition" or whatever bullshit. Please go argue in that thread as it's more on-topic there. You can then link your own summary and conclusions here. Do as you like, really.


Correct. In this case, scamming was not attempted either.


I want Vod to address my questions. I want Vod to realize what he's doing. I want all the people to realize what's going on in these forums. I want changes to the Default Trust system as it's encouraging heavy abuse/misuse and causes fear of speech as of now. Simple adjusting of the default trust system could make it a lot more fair and credible. Trust system is not a game. Yet it has formed into one. I want things to improve to make this forum better. And I want this thread to stay on topic. I also want people to read what has happened before commenting.

I think I've discussed self-bidding and auctions in general to a great length already. I can talk about it with you in another thread or in private. Maybe we can continue in that Reputation thread? What do you not know yet? What do you want?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

I would see that as a threat too.  Luckily I never told you that.  :)



Not enough to post from your main account though....  ::)

He has not answered AFAIK. Give me links to the replies if you feel you're right.

Again, see the difference between a running auction and ended auction.

Your private message to me:


This is direct threat. "Do that or I do this" -threat. Your message means the following: "You have to change your rating to neutral or I will negatively rate you". Do you agree? If not, where am I failing here?
You gave me permission to publish that private message.

A direct threat is "I will kill you". 

You can read what you want into my statements.  I think you have already proven yourself to be incredibly dense.

You gave me the strict option to either change my rating or be rated negatively. If that's not a threat, maybe you'd prefer to call it blackmailing?

You call it, and me, whatever you want.  :)

Now, any new information before I move on?

If I'm the bidder I don't see the difference. You can back out of the deal, why can't I? Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

Regarding the auction, I'm not sure why Vod cares about a misinterpretation of auction etiquette from years back, which Anduck has since said will not do again. Anduck has done several deals and has gained the trust of myself and many collectors. I'm not aware of Vod ever frequenting the collector subsection, so it is odd that he would leave this neg after 2 years. Take that opinion for what it's worth. It's too bad he has default trust, because this is a petty complaint at best against an asset and respected dev in the community (just google Anduck and bitcoin if you don't know his contributions).  The fact that one person can make a person's trust rating appear to be illegitimate at first glance is wrong, especially when you have so many positive comments from very respected people. 

Vod I don't know you, I am here only to vouch for Anduck but if you really want to be seen as a legitimate scam buster, stop going after core devs for petty issues years ago.

Any DT member who trusts Anduck can counter Vod's rating if they feel that this is too harsh.

You are suggesting DT2 members to abuse their power? didn't expect anything less from you. this is a bad practice. one does not simply favor some people over others just because they were given a position of power> DT2.

That is not abuse. What the hell is wrong with you? Do search up what abuse means. Misuse would make sense but abuse, no.

---

I don't want to misunderstand here, but what are you implying?
I have one question for you vod, for now atleast : Why did you change back your rating against Anduck? Is it because of you believing Anduck's feedback to be retaliatory? Or is it  because of some other reason.

Tomato or tomato. result is still bad and untrustworthy thing to do.


Stop cornering Vod like this, simply say that dear Vod you need to change your rating. it doesn't give you the right to tag the OP for something that happened 2 years ago.

Just because things didn't work in your favour doesn't mean they are wrong.What he meant is, if there are any more members on the DT who don't agree with the feedback left by Vod,they're free to give a counter feedback to restore his trust ratings.That way,the trust system remains decentralised to an extent.By the way you can still get people from DT1/DT2 to leave you positive ratings if they fell you're right and have your trust restored :)

Wrong, that is just wrong, that is misuse of DT and that could mean that Vod's feedback worth nothing, in other words:

"Vod, we are not happy about your feedback, instead of providing our reasons we would like to screw you over and use our DT position as a personal tool and not to use it to better the forum and it's community's business affairs, we just want the OP's profile to look OK by default when people only are looking at his profile without reading his trust page, therefore we would like to deceive people by countering your ratings".

The right thing to do is:

Dear and respected forum member Vod, we believe that tagging the OP for something that happened 2 years ago is not the right use of your DT power, we as the community members would like to voice our concerns and ask you to correct this issue please.

Then the community would see Vod's reaction, they could then tag Vod if they see that he is not listening to reason, if Vod has done more good than bad, they shouldn't kick him out of DT, they should show him the same treatment> tagging him for not complying to the wills of the general consensus.

Countering Vod's feedback is equal as telling him to go fuck yourself.

Just like you charging people to remove negative trust?
I am not corneing Vod. And to be clear, Vod was right in giving the negative rating in the first place. My only concern is what changed his mind to change the tag.

It's not even misuse. It a perfectly valid theymos-endorsed use case for the trust system. It can be used to counter a potentially unfair negative rating.


Complete nonsense. It just means that someone disagrees with Vod.


Who's "we" and "they"? Your handpicked forum politburo?

What a joke. so what happens if non-DT members disagree with Vod? what happens to the 99.99% of forum members who are not on DT? such decentralized system you have here. <sarcasm>

Non-DT members can voice their concerns (which Anduck did) and any DT member can take action or not (no takers yet).

False.
DT members taking action would require all DT1 members who have added Vod to DT2 to remove him. Such action is not needed or wanted here, though. Best outcome would be if Vod stopped abusing DT position.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

I was talking about a DT2 member countering Vod's neg.

Ok. I have 8 ratings by DT members which of one is negative. It shows my trust as "? ? ?" and orange, so it doesn't seem to be "counterable". This rating by Vod is in the "trusted ratings" list by default. So silly.

Well, obviously you need a NEW positive rating AFTER Vod's negative, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Funny how you post retaliatory feedback and go on multi-page rants about trust system abuse and you don't even know how the system works.

I thought red trust get used only in the case when someone sell something through the forum and scam people by just taking money without sending a thing, or for managers of those campaigns that didn't pay to their members.
If something like you tell is actually happening I have no idea how we could solve it, because of now with stronger terms around merit everyone afraid to loose the profile, so I think now people prefer to be silent even more than before.

My rating to Vod is from 2017. His rating to me is from 2018. Retaliatory? It's kinda funny how you keep on ignoring all the proved facts here, and you still keep on commenting. And Vod's awfully silent..  ;)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)


Agree. I'm trying to be "awarding" red trust for any sort of over-the-line untrustworthy behavior that I deem important for others to know about. Shortly, people who I wouldn't trade with and prefer to not do business with. Like Vod here who keeps on provably lying and harassing me since last year.

You can also verify everything by reading the undisputed events and their timeline, and our private conversation that was published --also undisputed. Actually, Vod has proven no evidence or proof of his claims about me. It's mind-boggling that he's doing this at this length already. More info here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

Your feedback for Vod says "Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that." Are you now going to claim this was NOT in response to Vod's original feedback, since deleted?

Of course it was retaliatory.



Why argue any further?  Everything has been said.  Stop harassing me. 

DT2 members need not to counter Vod's feedback, why would they do that? if they think that Vod has abused his power on DT2 they need to tag him. countering Vod's feedback without any reference as to why they are giving the OP some positive trust is misuse of the trust system. that would mean that they are favoring OP for past deeds whether good or bad.

However, since Vod has tagged the OP for something from the past, it is OK to give positive trust to OP for something that happened in the past as well. but Vod has to get tagged if they think that he has abused DT2.

Therefore, I'd like to ask a DT member to tag this OP with green trust and provide reference link back here for people to see the reason for such countering.

Why are you still posting this nonsense here? Is the OP your client? That would explain why you both are so proudly clueless about the trust system.

You told me to ask you questions. I asked you a bunch of questions here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493) Why are you avoiding to answer to any of the questions? Do you think it's acceptable for you to e.g. fake quote, lie and do all this untrustworthy and provably dishonest shit?

You abuse your DT position. You've provably lied about me and what has happened a lot, too. It's funny, because everyone can see the truth by looking at the sources. Everyone can see your fake quote, instances of lying, threatening etc. You don't seem to acknowledge any of this.

You're continuing to act intellectually dishonest. I fail to see how people would trust you when you do that. I've told you various times why I thought we both should've drop our ratings towards each other. This is a very silly, escalated thing after all. But, it changed when you changed your stance about me not being untrustworthy in your eyes. Previously you told me that you don't see me as untrustworthy, so I were up to drop the ratings all together then. I asked you if we both could drop our ratings as you said you don't think I'm untrustworthy, and I on the other hand wouldn't need to necessarily announce to the world how I distrust you, because of your (back then mild, now it's a lot worse) untrustworthy behavior.

About my rating being retaliatory:
Initially, Vod said bunch of untrustworthy stuff, like called me a scammer when I had not scammed anyone. I rated you, Vod, because of that, just like my rating reason states. It's perfectly valid and not placed because of your rating itself. I simply can't trust people who call me a scammer when I've not scammed anyone. Later I've thought maybe I could've let it slide, but back then I chose to announce it to the world by rating you negatively. It turned out that you're more than just an untrustworthy person.

Vod claims you're untrustworthy because you bid on your own auction.

You claim Vod is untrustworthy because of unpleasant things said to you.

Let's say I ignore your flexible moral backbone for a minute and assume that your feedback is not retaliatory. The best interpretation I can come up with is that you both exercised your freedom of speech.

You are clueless about freedom of anything. between OP and Vod, only Vod's exercise of free speech has any meaningful weight. OP's means jack, it doesn't matter what OP says, according to DT made up rules DT members are always right and others are not.

It was actually this person that made the fake quote.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39391773#msg39391773

I quoted it before I realized he was just making a suggestion.  I have edited my post and I apologize again.



See?  It happens to all of us.  :)

I see. You didn't quote me at all. You had edited the quote fraudulently to be from me, which was *your* edit -- not done by anyone else. What you "quoted" was never available as is, so you did made the edit yourself to make it show like I had said it. I had not posted what you quoted to be said by me. (Except in a quote, too, which shows clearly who I quoted.) Another case of you being intellectually dishonest! Thanks for apologizing, though. This is the first time I see you apologize for this fake quote you did. You still have post(s) where you do "conclusions" based on this fake quote of yours.

The one whose quote you took and edited to be said by me wasn't "fake quoting" anyone. He didn't attribute the text in the quote tags to anyone -- he didn't mark that its said by someone when it wasn't. So he did not make a fake quote like you claim. Stop lying.



It would be nice if you would at least quote the whole sentence if you're going to quote. Whatever, really.

You should run for politics man.  You are great at skewing reality and making up shit.  :)

I'm countering the rating. If you have any problems with this you can make your case but the way I see it, both users are acting a bit like children with this retaliatory feedback bullshit.

Excellent.  Now maybe this bozo will stop harassing me. 

I can see him in a bar, hitting on the same woman all night until the bouncers kick him out lol...

Lol. it seems that my trap worked. why did you counter Vod's feedback? now OP only has the look of a trustworthy person on his profile, nothing has changed in reality. Vod has abused his DT status by tagging the OP for something from the past. you are countering Vod's feedback just to hide the truth.

This is the evidence I needed to tag you actmyname, thank you for giving me a valid excuse, you have had no past interactions with OP, why would you do this favor for him? because you don't know how to use DT power you are holding. this is enough for you to get kicked out from DT2. I will now tag you red for this. I could tag Vod but the reason as to why he has tagged OP is valid therefore I'd refrain from tagging Vod.

Give it a rest you fool, your arguments are rubbish and badly-constructed.

Seriously man??? Did you even read the feedback from @actmyname?

actmyname deserve some respect... if I was DT member I should have done this too.

Why your glass is always half empty?

Nothing about respect here, he has made a huge mistake by countering Vod's feedback without having any past deals with OP. if you were a DT member you should get booted off from DT for doing this.

I owe you a beer

You know you don't need to keep spamming ridiculous statements like this one - it is already abundantly clear from other threads that you have absolutely zero understanding of what the trust system is or how it functions.

Here, a known criminal owes you a beer for abusing/misusing your DT power. of course we shouldn't expect anything less from criminals. this forum is filled with them and 99.9% of people here are pussies, they fear to lose their garbage posting chances, so they wont say anything, they would keep being the little slavetards that they are just to feed their families. good on you guys.

Now I see that a known criminal has merited actmyname with 8 merits, this merit source is also misusing his source merits like suchmoon. note that actmyname has no past dealing with OP, so one has to wonder, whether actmyname took some money to counter Vod's feedback? maybe this is the case with DT members????? they would do this just to blackmail people????

I'm waiting for my positive trust from acctmyname.  If what he posted was true, he gives positive trust for acting like a child.  If both sides are acting the same, why is only one side trustworthy?   ???

Anyway, I am happy with this. Anduck can continue his Bitcoin development with a 0 trust rating, and I can continue to warn the community he is a scammer and a liar.  :)

You've presented no evidence, no proof, no source, NOTHING about me having scammed or lied. You are bullshitting in your feedback and in your comments.

Additionally, you've done other pretty untrustworthy shit recently, i.e. threatened/blackmailed me (when I ignored your blackmailing, you proceeded to negatively rate me), fake quote (and claiming someone else faked the quote when everyone sees it was you), intellectual dishonesty in various ways, and the list goes on. Sources: here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39540072#msg39540072), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847) and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.0). (shortly: this thread, thread in Reputation board, and his rating to me)

I can see that you're happy as people still haven't properly realized how dishonest and untrustworthy you are. And I don't even know where else you've been lying your ass off. This is not behavior expected from a DT2 member, or anyone.

I hope you get admin attention on this, bump for visibility

So now Vod has given a positive trust to actmyname because actmyname tried to hide the truth by countering Vod's feedback? I'm disappointed in you man. tagged Vod for colluding with DT2 member actmyname.

Note that actmyname has no past dealings with Anduck, he had no right to counter Vod's feedback, Vod is also misusing the trust system. therefore my tag on him is valid.

Hide what truth? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What kind of birdbrained logic do you follow to which you think my disagreement with Vod means that I'm colluding with him?

1) You do not know this
2) You have no past dealings with me, yet you have sent me feedback. ???

So which one is it? Am I abusing the trust system or is Vod abusing the trust system?

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/787/356/d6f.jpg

I didn't know you and I had a disagreement.

digaran seems to be a bit of a loon....

You're destroying digaran's ill-conceived "business" plan by resolving DT issues the way they're meant to be resolved, and not using his "troika" approach. I think that's the source of this latest butthurt.

So it seems that suchmoon, actmyname and Vod all three agree that they should use the trust system to hide the truth.
Here is my argument:

Vod has tagged Anduck stating that he was trying to scam people by bidding on his own auction. great and thank you for your vigilance.

Actmyname comes here and would counter Vod's feedback to hide Vod's negative trust on Anduck's profile only from the public, Vod's tag on Anduck is still accessible and people could read it, now Anduck only has the look of a trustworthy person on his profile, nothing has changed.

Vod then goes and leaves a positive feedback for actmyname after I have already tagged actmyname for trying to hide the truth, that means Vod is trying to double hide the truth from the public's eyes.

This seems trustworthy behavior? hell no. am I a loon in the eyes of these trust abusers? hell yes. now here is my question to admin:

Do you really want these kind of activities on this forum? dig a little deeper and you'll see that these people have tried to do this garbage for years, they have constantly tried to hide the truth from the public. this is not new at all, this is what caught my attention, there is more.

They are blatantly running around and would tag people red or green for any reason they want and because of the lack of moderation they have gone rogue, if they are not stopped, they would continue to do this and would say what they are doing is justified.

It's not hiding his negative trust.

Anduck has a 0: -1 / +8 on his profile, that doesn't look "trustworthy" to me.

Read this back to yourself and tell me why this makes any sense in the eyes of someone who isn't a lunatic.

Double-hide the truth? What the fuck?

What he probably means is that, after digaran(a non DT member) tagged you for *hiding* the truth, Vod(a DT member) goes ahead and gives you a positive rating, which may seem to him that DT members are *hiding the truth* and his tag will become even more worthless.

Edit:I meant digaran.

actmyname is a DT member. Unless you meant digaran, who's just a trust spammer.


Nothing is hidden you pillock. Act's feedback zeroed out Anduck's score so he can rebuild it if he cares. The orange "-1" is still there. The feedback is still there. Anybody willing to deal with these users can (and should) read it and make up their mind.

This whole thing is so absurd. Vod keeps on lying and nobody else even asks him to present any source, proof or evidence for his claims. Look at the rating Vod has given me and try to find where I've scammed, lied or "admitted lying in PM". I've not scammed anyone, I've not lied and I've not "admitted lying in PM". If Vod can't source/proof/evidence anything, what makes his rating not pure abuse? I don't even want to repeat all his untrustworthy shit again as it's all there in these threads. This thread gets derailed so easily, but let's try to stick to the point again. Next, how about we wait if Vod presents sources/proofs/evidence? Maybe this community should deem DT people to actually provide sources/proofs/evidence when they rate based on some claims.

In this case, if it's not clear yet, it will become clear, that Vod has no evidence, proofs or sources. It's bad for the community if DT/trust system keeps on being used like this. Especially DT, because DT is not meant for personal harassing like what Vod is exercising.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39588914#msg39588914 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39588914#msg39588914)

I feel that bidding on your own auction is scamming.   I understand you don't, but it's my feedback.

Also, to use your own words:  "Calls me a liar. Can't trust a guy who does that."

Except it is not just a "feedback" but an act done with the purpose of ruining an account and a business(as in OP case), you don't give your reputation from the same point of a newbie and the lack of moderation on dt2 has created abusers like you

Correct.  I have been around for years and I have helped this forum grow.  I have earned the respect of those that trust me.

How? Harassing members? Your trust is what makes you an abuser at the moment

An independent observer reading both our posts would conclude that it is you harassing me.  :)

My account is ruined thanks to you so yeah expect me to do that even more

It's self-defense

Well, next time don't try to scam.  :/

Groundless accusations won't make you(a liar) right any time soon

My rating (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747) towards you states: "Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that."

Again my "own words" are not exactly what you claim it to be. Last time (when you attributed some random quote to be from me, and manually faked it to show to be said by me), 100% of my "own words" were not mine. Wtf..

So, you think auctioneer bidding on auction is scamming. That's not how it is. But I guess stupid person can call cat a dog without seeing the difference between cats and dogs. You're conveniently making up these "reasons" to rate me, as they have nothing to do with what you stated as the reason. I think it is obvious, that you really rated me because you told me you would, unless I changed my rating -- and I didn't change it.

Also, I've not "admitted to lying" as your rating lies about me additionally. Stop playing an idiot, Vod.

And my words toward you state:  "Calls me a liar. Can't trust a guy who does that."  Bold words are important to you?

Play all the games you want - it doesn't make me trust you once you've scammed.  :/

Oh FFS, are you really that dense? You're gonna complain about someone paraphrasing you?


No, that's exactly how it is. Vod does indeed think that way and has stated so repeatedly, including in your trust feedback.

Don't be a sore winner.

Not really. Just noticed he tried to slip in a different word with different meaning. Is it so wrong to correct his misquote? You don't seem to have meaningful input in this thread, btw...


Of course you're free to think that cats are dogs. Anyway, I'm not arguing stupid and illogical thinking to be the primary reason for Vods' dishonesty and untrustworthiness.

He can think that way -- I am not complaining about his failure to understand what scamming is. I don't complain about your failure to user your head either. I am complaining about his blackmailing and lies and other seriously untrustworthy and petty behavior. (And yes, he's free to be petty if he wants.) I am not going to rehash it all as everyone should at this point just read this thread, see the linked sources to verify everything, and then use their own brains. You are derailing this thread by narrowing the discussion to be about some detail.

To people who are not following this thread closely, I'll do a short reminder. Everyone should read this thread completely and linked sources, to know what's going on. Vod is becoming more and more untrustworthy member of this forum, who has now provably blackmailed me, provably lied about me (some mild lies, some very offensive lies), provably faked a quote (and provably lied about who faked it), etc. That's some of what's provable and considered objective by me. It's up for the individual readers to go through it and make conclusions about what's happening here. I've presented my view on the trustworthiness of Vod. Additionally, there's lots of non-objective/non-provable dishonesty present, such as intellectual dishonesty (which could technically be stupidity) and "rare coincidences". Everything is available in this and other threads via links.

If by "meaningful input" you mean agreeing with you 100% - no, I'm not gonna do that. Get over it. It's a public thread.

I'm not agreeing with Vod 100% either, otherwise you'd have another red tag. See how that works?


The only provable things that I can see are (1) you bid on your own auction; (2) you got negative trust from Vod; and (3) you posted negative trust for Vod. Everything else is your opinion. Just like e.g. my opinion is that your neg feedback was retaliatory and you have no standing in "intellectual dishonesty" claims.

You have stated your opinion multiple times. You've have stated somewhere upthread that you don't want Vod to be removed from DT. You have posted a negative rating for Vod. You got one DT member help you recover your score. What exactly it is that you're trying to do now? Call the cops on someone being unfair to you on an internet forum?

Lock the thread. You're better off than when you started it.

I can see that you're buddies with Vod and you're trying to help him here. I understand, that's what friends sometimes do. Still you or nobody can wipe the facts under the carpet, no matter how much you try to derail and make this thread incomprehensibly complex to follow. I wish staff would step in to remove all the unrelated bullshit. If you have nothing but shit to spew, keep your mouth shut.
Mods should delete this post too, as it's offtopic in this thread. It'a not a public forum, btw.

There is a "Report to moderator" thingy in the lower right corner of each post.

I'm not buddies with Vod... let's call it an honest mistake because you wouldn't lie, would you?

So let me try again:

You have stated your opinion multiple times. You've have stated somewhere upthread that you don't want Vod to be removed from DT. You have posted a negative rating for Vod. You got one DT member help you recover your score. What exactly it is that you're trying to do now?

As it appears, Vod has been abusing his DT2 status for years, he has given positive trust and negative trust to anybody he sees fit, when he is called out to play the role of a trustworthy person, he would dismiss it with posting an image and would move on.

I have done some digging and it is clear that he is favoring some people over others and this person should not hold any power. it is once again clear that Vod is not fit to be on DT2. he tagged anduck for something from the past, actmyname abused his DT2 status by countering Vod's feedback while actmyname had no past dealings with Anduck, then Vod goes and leaves a positive trust for actmyname for abusing his DT2 position.

This is a blatant case of abusing DT2 position by both Vod and actmyname, they would artificially tag each other red/green whenever they want, therefore I'd like to request for removal of Vod and actmyname from DT2. unless they both agree that what they have done was wrong and accept that they have made a mistake. but that is not the case, they think what they are doing is right because no one in any position of power is doing anything to stop them.

What are you saying digaran?  People on default trust need to keep their opinion to themselves?

Every thread you post in gets derailed.

There is no time limit on negative feedback. If someone had scammed a year ago but no one noticed it until now, would it be wrong to tag them? Certainly not.

1) Countering feedback is not trust abuse. This is known.
2) You do not know if I have had past dealings with Anduck. You are making an ignorant statement.
3) It does not matter if I have had past dealings with Anduck. Just like how I don't have to be scammed by someone to tag a scammer, I don't need to have traded with someone before to leave them a rating.

See above.

I have not sent any feedback to Vod yet.

---

The problem with your thought process is that you're saying Vod is abusing his power by tagging Anduck but I'm wrong for defending Anduck. It's an ill-conceived, contradictory argument.

Well, people on default trust should keep their own opinions to themselves since their opinions is visible to everybody  by default, so if every one of them tries to have a different opinion, their feedbacks says otherwise.

You on DT2 would tag A as untrustworthy, actmyname then would tag A as trustworthy (according to default trust being visible to people).
You have tried to take advantage of DT2 position to dictate your own opinions and make them appear as default trust rating to everybody in this community. you have proven so many times to be abusing people with your DT2 power you hold over 99.99% of forum members.

Anduck clearly states that he is not going to bid on his auctions after seeing the reactions of this community's members, yet you insist on tagging him for something that happened 2 years ago.

You do realize that people are added on DT for stating their opinion right? The entire forum is based on opinions, so your point really doesn't make sense here.
Vod was right in tagging him, because it is unethical, the time frame doesn't matter but since Anduck has said he won't do anything like that in the future, it's fair to say that Vod could give Anduck the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you. due to the language barrier, I can not express myself perfectly, however it seems that you understand my point.

Wow. I am surprised that there's a little emotion inside digaran :-\ Well,good for you.

You know, you can express yourself properly if not perfectly, but if you act like a lunatic, not everyone would understand what you are trying to stay.  p

Why are you ignoring that Vod threatened me he would red-rate me if I did not change my rating? Me not changing my rating is the reason Vod negatively rated me. What makes you think he rated me because of something else? He clearly said he would negatively rate me if I didn't do what he says.

This is yet another reason as to why Vod should be removed from DT2 position, those who have included him on DT2 seem to not care about Vod's actions, they don't care if what he is doing is damaging our reputation. if they refuse to take any action after seeing all of his abuse of other people, they are also not fit to be on DT1.

BUT from the looks of it, they are busy with their businesses, they are busy lining their pockets elsewhere and they have left us all to get abused by these rogue DT2 members. if you see that people are ignoring the truth is because most of the people in this forum are garbage posters, they are earning money here by garbage posting all the time, they are afraid to say anything because they could lose their earning opportunity, they are the worse people on this earth. sad truth OP.

I would like to point fingers at Vod, once again he has misused the trust system.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4457684.msg39907096#msg39907096

Read both the comment of his tag and the reference. of course nobody cares right? so let him do whatever he wants.

Could you quote/screenshot the PM(s) where Vod said that?

Its referred here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761
The one where Vod apparently refers that either Anduck or Vod will have to change the rating.

What would you do don DarkStar_? what are you going to do after seeing Vod's actions? unfortunately you are not big enough here to take a serious action that could change Vod's behavior towards 99.99% of forum members. unfortunately he is untouchable therefore he would keep abusing other people. I am his latest victim.

You are no victim, bozo. 

I did notice you have attracted the support of Quickseller.  You are his type of guy!  :)

That is correct. Quote:


"One of us will have to change" means I would've had to remove my red rating or be red rated. I didn't change my rating, so he proceeded with this threat/blackmailing (and refuses to acknowledge it as such) and makes up bullshit excuses.

Further more Vod tagged me in retaliation of my tag on him. Vod is incompetent individual and is also trying to moderate the trust system. if you read his tag on me, you'll understand.

How many times DT members could toy with other people's reputation until they get kicked out from DT?

Have you contacted DT1 members yet?

So what we have here? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=31931) yes ladies and gentlemen, we have our newest DT2 member DarkStar_ who thinks that after getting on DT2 and having a trusted opinion by default now he could do whatever he wants.

What we have here is a clear evidence of personal use of default trust system yet by another DT2 member, my questions are:

Where is the evidence provided by DarkStar_ as to why he thinks Anduck deserves a green trust from him?
Why DarkStar_ is not tagging Vod if he thinks that Vod's feedback was retaliatory?

Maybe because DarkStar_ is afraid of losing his position on DT2 if he does something that other DT members don't like?
Tell me, is Anduck now automatically trustworthy?
This is the evidence I needed to tell you all that DT members are constantly misusing the trust system and are artificially increase/decrease their own and other people's trust scores, this is a sign of favoritism among a few selected members of this community.

They would tag whomever they want with green/red and expect the rest of us to "just" trust their words. unless DarkStar_ could provide some convincing reasons as to why he is trusting Anduck, I'd say that he should be excluded from DT2 and save us all from future similar cases where they "think" that they should use default trust whenever they feel is necessary.

I don't know how fond I am of another member telling others than my trust is to be ignored....  :/

Run fast and tag DarkStar_ with some green to further my agenda. :/

You are quite "wishy washy", aren't you Charlie Brown?  (Link for younger people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown))

You seem to change your attitude and support based on what your mom cooked for dinner...  :/

I know right, first you would come here to tag somebody from the past and at the end 2 people walk away with some fake green trust. this shows how fucked up the trust system is right now. left and right people would tag each other with green trust and nobody is asking them why? quite a little cartel you have here @theymos. I bet he is not aware of any of this. ;)

What is next? I bet we'll have another DT2 member suddenly seeing this topic and he/she would jump in to tag Anduck for something from the past and other DT members would also jump in to tag each other right, left and center and they would praise each other to say wow, what a trustworthy person you are, here some fake green trust for you.

In a few weeks, some other random DT2 would see this topic and they would think: nice, why don't we also jump in this situation and get some fake green trust as well? this goes on and on for years and only the names would change but the actions are always the same: people are misusing the trust system from any hole they could find.

I mean seriously guys, take a look at every single DT1-2 member's trust page, they have been on this business for years while thousands of people are getting screwed over on the other side. take my case for example, I started to question DT members and their tagging habits, they found whatever they wanted to find and they tagged me as untrustworthy and a scammer. what is painful is the fact that they know they are bullying me with their red tags but nobody is asking them why(I mean nobody who could actually have a saying on the matter). funny fact: I haven't got a single satoshi from anybody here, they all are tagging me for the things I say, they all are tagging me for the things I do whilst nobody has ever got hurt by my actions other than DT members and their egos.

Why? because I'm not using alt accounts to say what I say and to do what I do, as a result we could say this is the reason for people to do alt accounts and what is best to do with them after saying and doing? of course they could then use those accounts to post garbage and earn money.

Because apart from the loose red-trust scammers that agree with you out of spite, nobody else has a problem with the tags. I wonder if the issue is not with the system but rather with you.

And neither am I, though you constantly believe that I have alt accounts. Why can't the reverse be true?

Just on this: it's a very presumptuous accusation when you assume that people are doing this for positive trust. In fact, DarkStar_ has not received positive trust for their actions. And in my opinion, that's actually feedback which I disagree with. The trust I gave cancelled out Vod's trust, end of story. Any further positive trust should be held with the same value as if there were no negative in the first place, thus invalidating its quality as a "counter-rating".

---

If you're basing things on solely one case (i.e. Vod giving me positive trust) then that's an extrapolation with a lot of variance.

Might as well do this:

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/extrapolating.png (https://xkcd.com/605/)

1) off topic - create your own thread
2) there are references on most of Wapinter's received feedback, there are no references on Wapinter's sent feedback, so what are you complaining about?

Vod's a gift that keeps on giving..

https://i.imgur.com/6m2AYQB.png


He is calling me dishonest, liar and a scammer, in these threads and in his ratings. He is simply lying, as anyone can verify. He has presented no proof/source/evidence of any kind, as there is none. Demand proof/source/evidence from this abuser called Vod. Please read this thread completely to gain proper understanding of what's going on. This person should not be in DT anymore. I did give him benefit of doubt, but that's now gone as this harassing continues and continues, apparently as long as he can keep on doing it. I am not the only target, I assume.

A pointer to start, or just start reading the topic from the frustrating beginning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

Vod should've tagged DarkStar_ for misusing the trust system but instead he decided to tag Anduck(a non-DT member) to bully him and say that whatever Vod decides should be the end of story and nobody else should counter his feedbacks.

So what do we have here?
We have Vod tagging Anduck for something that Anduck is no longer doing, actmyname comes here and counters Vod's feedback without providing any reason other than what Vod has done was a childish act. Vod then leaves a positive trust for actmyname.

DarkStar_ sees this opportunity and thinks to himself: why don't I go and tag Anduck with some green and maybe Vod tags me with some green too? however what happens next? Vod tags Anduck to counter DarkStar_'s positive feedback, meaning Vod is trying to directly moderate the trust system with his DT power and is not even fair with his moderation. these people are on this business for years and nobody is competent enough to put an end to their misuse of trust system and abuse of other forum members.

I will be tagging Vod for this obvious case of trust abuse, further I will be tagging DarkStar_ for not using his DT2 power properly and for giving out positive trust for absolutely no reason.

EDIT: tagged both Vod and DarkStar_ for making a personal tool out of the trust system.

Once again:

Stop quoting theymos, he is no god, just a man. you didn't counter Vod's feedback my don DarkStar_, no you handed out a positive trust to Anduck for no valid reason, actmyname already countered Vod's feedback which was also a mistake, because actmyname has no right to tag people with red and green wherever he/she wants to.

Vod's second neg has no effect on Anduck's score, you feckless moron. It's a red-colored neutral.

But it's cute how you think your clueless tagging is so important that you need to announce it every time.

Suchmoon. Vod's second negative rating to me is not a "red-colored neutral". There's nothing neutral in it. It's a red rating. And yes, it's not currently affecting the trust score.

You're loud when people "rate cluelessly". Vod rates me based on bullshit without source/proof/evidence. He rated me, because I told him I don't trust him. Petty people are like that. Now he felt the need to throw in another negative rating, again lying about me. I wonder why are you heavily defending Vod while whining about others' "clueless" ratings? Are you maybe in control of some other accounts too, in addition to Gleb? Maybe something that starts with a V and ends in a D? You've followed the thread since the beginning, so it seems quite dishonest to me to ignore Vods blatant lying, blackmailing attempts, and other proven dishonesty and scummy behavior.

I rated you because you scammed an auction.

Your continued lies and harassment reinforce my rating.

You're accusing me of lying and being dishonest. And I've not scammed an auction. You're a liar and should not be in DT anymore.

Everything is linked or present in this thread. It's also quoted, so you cannot go back to edit your shit. Ohh, speaking of quoting, you also faked a quote, based "conclusions" on it, then claimed somebody else had faked it and you simply followed him. Lies just keep on piling up. Grow up.

It is also interesting that you think changing auction rules during the auction is fine: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3147489 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3147489) (your rating to mprep: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=51173 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=51173)). Or did you not know about this?
One would think that's like "scamming an auction" by your standards? In my "scamming of an auction" no rules were altered, no shills were used, nothing shady was done -- auctioneer simply bid on the auction and won it. That's NOT scamming. You also told me you didn't see it as untrustworthy. You "changed" your opinion when you got pissed at me after I told you I don't trust you. I didn't even mean anything personal. However, I was obviously right even back then, as you've shown to be quite untrustworthy during these lately events.

It currently has no effect, and will never have an effect unless Vod deletes his first trust rating.

Only interesting if you don't look at the dates in the trust...

You are reaching, like all your accusations.  Stop harassing me, scammer.

It has no effect towards the score. It's a new red rating regardless and has same effects as any red rating, except for the score. If Vod deletes his first rating, this rating will also affect the score.


I assumed you would know about it by now. Did you, or were I the one to introduce you to that case? Is mprep "scammer" too by your standards? Who did he scam? Who did I scam? Why are you lying, abusing your position and harassing others in addition to other dishonest and disgusting behavior you commit?

All my accusations are provably true and correct. You're blatantly lying. Anyone can go and read it all, and you can't delete or edit your posts to hide it as it's all quoted. None of your accusations against me are solid. You've naturally shown us no proofs or evidence of your claims -- there's nothing to show. You just keep on touting baseless bullshit about me. Grow up.

I don't defend Vod nor do I think that he needs my defense. Not even sure what I'm supposed to be defending him from. I just happen to think that Vod has the right to not trust you.

Funny how you moan about "bullshit without source/proof/evidence" and then you proceed to accuse me of bullshit without source/proof/evidence. Are you familiar with the concept of a glass house? Seems like anyone not agreeing with you is automatically dishonest and when you're short on facts you start peddling your fallacies as facts.

Are you implying that Vod(the pedo) is not entitled to provide evidence in order to deface someone else's reputation?

I think Vod meets and exceeds your and Anduck's standards of evidence. Innuendo is not evidence.

Dude, it is not cool to use children to advance your agenda...

OK.

I agree: Vod has the right to not trust me. I also have the right to not trust him. It's not OK to blackmail and lie in ratings. Vod blackmailed me and lies in his ratings. You could verify this, but naturally you won't.

Vod is doing many sorts of disgusting and dishonest things here. I am defending myself from this abuse done by Vod. I've not scammed anyone. I've not lied. Vod blackmailed me. Vod lies about me. You, suchmoon, are questioning everyone here except Vod. Vod is provably dishonest with his constant lies and therefore untrustworthy.

As you can see, you're looking at this through rose-coloured Vod-glasses. I've not scammed or lied. It is not OK for Vod to rate me negatively while presenting lies as the reason. Nobody can show where I've done anything dishonest, scammed, lied and so on. Deem Vod (or anyone) to present any evidence of me scamming or lying.  I've presented evidence and proof of my claims about Vod. It's all linked or present in this thread, and quoted to prevent Vod from editing or deleting the history.

Suchmoon. It's sad that you whine about others all the time while completely ignoring Vod and his dirty dishonesty. He's the provably dishonest one here. I see this clearly sided take by yours as defending Vod. Granted, it could be that you just don't understand. And yes, you're entitled to do what you're doing here, but I'm telling you it's hurting your reputation. I hope you'd be reasonable, though.



I don't accuse you of anything. I'm sorry if you feel offended. I simply asked you questions. You don't need to answer to them. I don't ask you to agree with me, either. I am not short on facts. I am very full of facts, actually. :)

Anyway, after reading what you say in that quote, I find you intellectually dishonest. I strongly think that you should know better by now. I don't know if people genuinely don't understand when they're doing shit like that. You can fool many by doing that, though. People should be better...

Everyone: Please carefully read this thread to find out what's going on. Don't trust, verify.

How did Vod blackmail you? What did he ask for? What is he lying about?

I did verify this and don't agree with your conclusion. "naturally you won't" is a lie.


You have lied multiple times, including TO ME ABOUT ME^***, which is one of the stupidest kinds of lies you can come up with since you know that I know that you're lying. And again, I disagree with your conclusion on Vod's actions.


Bidding on your own auction can be considered dishonest. Lying to my virtual forum face is definitely dishonest. That leads me to believe (the following is an opinion in case you're wondering) that you're probably not quite honest in the rest of this debate either.


Thank you for your false concern about my reputation. Me disagreeing with you doesn't mean any of those other things that you're making up.


I'm fully familiar with the loaded question fallacy. Let me try:

I wonder why you're so butthurt about my comments towards you? Are you maybe in control of some other accounts, like one that starts with "cyber" and ends with "pinoy"? Or maybe one that starts with "Homero" and ends with "Garza"? When are you going to return the 128 BTC and 40000 BTC respectively to all those scammed victims?

I'm just asking questions. You don't need to answer to them. I don't ask you to agree with me, either.


I find you genuinely adorable in how you think your fallacious arguments can fool anyone.

---

^*** I consider your incessant use of fallacies intentional and I will therefore refer to it as lying. Feel free to correct me by admitting that you were simply mistaken in your reasoning.

Blackmailing/threatening: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39457664#msg39457664 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39457664#msg39457664) (Source in PM conv. here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761))

As you can see, he told me he will have to negatively me if I did not change my rating to neutral. That's threatening/blackmailing.

Vod is lying about me having scammed an auction. Vod is lying about me "admitting to lying". Vod faked a quote to be from me. Vod is lying about who faked that quote (he did it himself, as everyone can see.., but claims that someone else faked it and he just fell for it.)

Some pointers to some of his lies and other dishonesty: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

You can also simply see how he has rated me. He is lying in his ratings. I've not scammed anyone, have not lied about anything, and have not "admitted to lying" etc. Read this thread please, otherwise you won't have clear picture of what's going on. You need to verify these things yourself in these kind of cases.

Endless meta discussion incoming? Intellectual dishonesty is the thing of this time. Btw, you're inflating "lying" by claiming nearly anything said nearly anywhere is a lie.

I hope people who are reading these discussions have brains attached. ...  ;)

Let's try to stay on topic: abuse done by DT member Vod, and what to do about it and other DT / trust system problems. You don't need to participate if you're going to keep spouting nonsense & derailing meta shit.

P.S. suchmoon, I am not concerned about your reputation. I only said you're losing it. You can go and show everyone how foolish you are.

You're lying again. Not "nearly anything said nearly anywhere". Just the things that are said with intent to deceive.


You're the one who brought it up though. If that was not a genuine concern then it probably was "nonsense & derailing meta shit". Don't do that.

After reading the entire PM conversation, I would agree that Vod was abusing his position on DT in order to entice you to remove the rating that you had at the time against him. The question of if this rises to extortion or not, I am not sure, however unfortunately when you are in power around here, not very much will happen to you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0) after you extort someone.

I can't support the activity that was the root cause of this dispute, and others in the past have received multiple negative ratings for similar activity. On the other hand, I don't support the public lynching of members after making a single mistake, especially after they have made the relevant parties whole (it is my understanding this has not happened in your case).

I believe Vod's claim that you are lying stems from what was likely you misspeaking a single time, and probably does not fall into the category of being dishonest. Based upon the fact that Vod was previously asking for you to remove your negative with the threat of leaving a negative rating himself, I would question the legitimacy of the claim that Vod "distrusts" you, although I disagree with this standard to leave a negative rating.

I would suggest you contact dooglus, Cryus and HostFat about your concerns, and ideally they will remove Vod from their trust lists.

What misspeaking?

After rereading your previous thread, I will retract that statement. My statement stems from an issue that you cleared up here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37493582#msg37493582).

Let me make a new point here.
According to Vod, Anduck is a scammer, correct? OK.
Actmyname counters Vod's feedback to give a free pass to a scammer, actmyname literally said: here scammer Anduck, receive this positive trust and go on scamming people with ease, don't worry about Vod's negative feedback because I just countered it so that you could keep scamming people.

Now what is the reaction of Vod? yes he goes and leaves a positive trust for actmyname, Vod literally said: here actmyname have this positive trust because you just gave a free pass to somebody I consider as scammer. then DarkStar_ comes here and is not even countering any body's feedback, he just hands out a positive feedback for somebody Vod considers as scammer. what is Vod's reaction here? yes he goes and counters DarkStar_'s feedback just to say that Anduck is still a scammer.

They are misusing the trust system left and right and they will continue to do so unless they are kicked out from DT2.

Wrong.  I don't speak when I type.  :/

Savage vod level 9999. Checkmate. 
Vod +1 / digaran 0 hahaha can't stop laughing 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

Try reading.

Currently people can place any feedback they like - some of it is blatantly untrue.  It would be good if we were able to put a comment under any feedback.

No you didn't counter Vod's feedback because actmyname already did countered his rating on Anduck. is this the kind of accurate feedback people are supposed to leave on others in order to get on DT2?

And where is it stated/implied that you are limited to one counter feedback per account? (I'll remove it if this is the case, however I do not know of any limitation)

Do that remove it and I will remove my tag on you because I only tagged you for misusing the trust system, it's not about limitation, you are not supposed to do this kind of thing. you didn't counter Vod's feedback man you tagged Anduck with green and for what? what did Anduck do to deserve the green tag from you?

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

Mind providing a source that states that I am not supposed to leave counter feedbacks if one is already left? I'd be happy to remove it as soon as you provide a reputable citation. (from theymos or another admin)


Anduck got negative trust from Vod to deserve the green rating from me. They did not appear to intend to deceive, and Vod seemed to have wanted to trade rating removal with Anduck.

What happens to Vod here? he gets a free pass then? Vod also countered your green tag, how long are you going to play this game of tagging and countering the tag? this will only increase or decrease the trust scores artificially.

According to Vod, Anduck is a scammer, he should've tagged you for giving a free pass to a scammer but he is too much of a pussy to tag DT members, he is just a bully who would only bully non DT members.
Theymos is busy doing what admins do, moderating the trust system is on you DT members and when you are misusing your power, people are usually busy with their garbage posting businesses and don't have the time to get involved so you'd keep misusing the trust system, don't wait for theymos to tell you what is right and wrong, be a man and have your saying on the matters, though be fair and earn our trust and respect doing so.

Vod's counter to mine does nothing; it's a red colored neutral as he already left a negative trust in the past. I would only recounter if he deleted his old rating, as that would be trying to game the system and I might leave them a negative trust. As per theymos:

---

So because I do not find Anduck untrustworthy, that results in me becoming untrustworthy in Vod's eyes? He could argue that, but it wouldn't be a great argument. Not everyone has the same opinions, which helps keep the DT system (somewhat) decentralized.

---

My say is that there is zero issue leaving multiple counters. Again, please provide a citation, even if it's grasping at straws that multiple counters are not allowed. I don't have to wait for theymos to tell me what to do, just like how I don't have to listen to you tell me what to do. What gives you the power to create new rules for DT members?

Did Anduck pay you to counter Vod's feedback? maybe this is just a way for you guys to tag people just to get their money? if you are not going to provide a convincing reason as to why you are countering Vod's feedback, we could say that you are favoring Anduck, if your reason is just that Vod's feedback wasn't fair and Anduck didn't deserve it, then what happens to other people? for example:
Do I need to pay a DT member in order to have some counter feedbacks?
You seem to be the one making up your own rules and just expect us to trust you. Vod also tagged Anduck after 2 years, isn't that what theymos said to avoid doing? so we should consider Vod untrustworthy because he deleted his feedback and reposted it again to say "this guy turned to a scammer".

This whole case is because of Vod abusing Anduck, there are multiple red and green trust involved just because Vod felt he had the right to do whatever he wants and because nobody is stopping him, this will continue just like he countered your rating.

No. My only communication with Anduck was back in September 12, 2016, when I let him know that his Electrum server was lagging behind. Let me guess, new Reputation thread now and you're going to somehow link an Electrum server from almost two years ago with bribery? Also, funny that this is coming from you because you were the one who suggested that someone contact Lauda and offer to pay to get their negative trust feedback removed.


Vod did not delete his rating; the old one is still there, so the new one has no effect (essentially a red colored neutral).

What rules have I made up exactly? I left direct quotes on how counter feedbacks can work, from theymos. You have provided "restrictions" without any sources.

Who told you to do that? if you are not providing any convincing reason, then you might as well start your own new business of countering feedbacks and ask for money outside of this forum. good business opportunities DT members have here and they say we are the village idiots.



Nonsense, I never said to pay money, I said ask Lauda what would be the cost, if cost is always equal to money for you then that's your problem.

Why do you keep bringing up money in trust discussions? Says a lot more about you than about your imaginary DT issues.

And then of course later:

I doubt it is stated anywhere, but it certain is implied...

The feedback was already countered.  You are basically stating you trust Anduck and you do not trust me., when in your words we were both guilty of the same thing.

Can I not do things in my own free will?


That's a semi-fair point, but obviously you have a bit of bias. I don't state that I do not trust you though, just that I think your trust rating specifically on Anduck is poor.

Anyone else (not digaran) want to give an opinion on this?

Yes you can do things on your own free will because you are not a slave at all. ;) listen don, head of the chipmixer family, we're talking about people's reputation here, keep your free will to yourself and tag people based on factual evidence not just because you want to.


No people are not going to say anything because they're all a bunch of pussies, if you see Vod is saying something because he feels that you are both equal in power. though apparently Vod is scared of actmyname for some unknown reason, that's why he tagged him/her with green. people are not going to agree with me because then I'd win. that's why they would never agree on anything with me.

I certainly can see why you have so much negative trust.  :/

Are you sure it's not because you're a belligerent fool?

Now a fair warning - your head might explode. I disagree with Vod that it's implied there can be only one counter rating. I think it's a gray area at best. If I felt it's necessary to counter a negative feedback I would do that (and have done so) without much regard for who else was or wasn't countering, just like I wouldn't base my other ratings on who else is doing it.

Yes you are like that because you're a trust abuser, you would even counter legitimate red trust feedback to give free pass to scammers and would try to stop me from serving justice for the community. you also bought a DT2 account while the investigation was ongoing. you have no regards for other people and you want to call the shots around here.

Back to the topic, is there anybody else who'd like to counter Vod's feedback on Anduck? then Vod tags Anduck again and this thing could continue forever.
Vod I'm asking you once more, could you please forgive Anduck by giving him a chance and kindly remove both your red tags on him? be a man and set an example for us all, if you forgive people would see and learn from you, let people to learn something good and not just always to learn fighting and accusing.

That's a lie. You can not say all Mr. self declared, no licensed,  never own won a single case lawyer sir

Are you being paid to have me remove my red trust?   :-X

Honestly? no, however I hope that if you do remove your tags, Anduck could send a tip to my address, that's why I have added my segwit address in my signature. I'm not going to ask for money, he could totally ignore my efforts and you could also totally keep at what you are doing. I don't have any power here.

Note if you do remove your tags, I'll have no other choice than removing my tags on you, because I tagged you only for this case, removing the tags then would nullify the green trusts of actmyname and DS, so they will have to remove their green tags as well.

Then you could watch Anduck and tag him if he bids on his own auctions again.

Or, and hear me out, we could do none of those things and continue to ignore you.

If a person can be tagged by multiple people for the same reason, such as a single scam instance or by being a scam buster, I don't see why multiple counters for one feedback shouldn't be allowed.

Vod does seem to have left retaliatory feedback and the PM conversation is definitely not helping Vod's side. I had asked Vod a question a few days ago  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39466894#msg39466894)but it was buried, thanks digaran, so Vod do answer this: Why did you change your feeback to Anduck from neutral to negative, is it because Anduck said he doesn't trust you, so you wanted to change it?

And DarkStar_, multiple counters are totally fine. If the rating you're countering is wrongly given, which does seem like the case here. And also this:

Thread is about to get derailed again.

Let's try to think of ways to improve trust system, and specifically DT system. I think adding more members to DT1 would help reduce abuse. E.g. then Vod would likely receive bunch of negative trust for lying in ratings, and for other untrustworthy behavior. Current(ly) DT members are largely afraid to do anything -- and I've heard this from several people who are either on DT or have been on DT. Also some non-DT users I've contacted are refraining to voice themselves in any way, largely because of the consequences that might happen in the form of trust system abuse. I've said this several times now, but it needs repeating.

Also we have this one example case of abuse, where Vod is abusing DT position against me.

Reminders:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39588914#msg39588914 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39588914#msg39588914)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)
To get a proper view of what's happening, read this thread completely and follow links to get to the sources. Also read the reputation thread linked in OP.

Also reminding you of this, as some people seem to skip over it: Vod asked me to change my rating, threatening to otherwise red-rate me. I refused. He rated me red. He also started claiming I'm a scammer and a liar, when I'm provably neither. His ratings to me are absolutely dishonest -- not just "poor". Why are some people still thinking his ratings have something to do with some >2yr old auction, that Vod earlier commented by saying "I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy"?

Because he can? I'm not speaking on his behalf but I don't think he exactly owes you an explanation for that question. I used to trust a person somewhat and I don't feel like trusting him anymore, I can always change my feedback from neutral to negative? It's completely fine to do that provided a valid reason is tagged along with it.(which seems to be the case here)

Had that been the case, I don't think actmyname and DarkStar_ would have countered it(,unless you think actmyname and DarkStar_ are Anduck's alts and actmyname and DarkStar_ are also chipmixer shills, well....Digaran......) But that wasn't the case, read this:

Did actual DT (DT1 or DT2) members tell you that or did you make that up?

Do you think that he red-rated me, because I didn't change my rating? If you think that's not the reason, why do you think he red-rated me?

6:15 PM: "I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy"
11:26 PM: Opinion changed 100% after I didn't bend to his threat, following a red rating few days later stating that I'm a scammer and a liar.

What do you think, why did Vod's opinion about me being trustworthy change completely during these ~5 hours? (Note: His threatening/blackmailing and my refusal happened during these hours.)


I don't make stuff up.
People are not willing to do anything, because of the consequences that will likely come to them. You should know, too, as it has happened before. It's not a secret how these things are. You can ask people yourself, or use search.

You're the one making the claim. What would I be searching for if I don't even know it exists? So do you have a link or at least a screenshot of a private conversation (feel free to remove names) where "several" DT1 or DT2 members told you that they're "afraid to do anything" with regards to your dispute with Vod?

Regardless, according to my trust settings both their feedback appear as untrusted so the counter part din't really had any effect.

13 pages of the thread, either you should have gotten the answer or you are just not digesting it. Either way, what I think doesn't really matter since feedback's are subjective and I can't tell Vod whom to trust.

My questions were directed at you specifically. To me, it looks like you don't comprehend what's going on. That's why I am asking. I'm only interested. Feel free to ignore my question if you don't want to answer.

Sup. You must have missed it.

This thread is about trust abuse.


You've made up several issues about me in this harassment campaign alone.  i think you are lying, again.

1) Where do I scam?
2) Where do I lie?
3) Where do I harass you?
4) What issues have I made up?

You've not provided sources, proofs, evidence or quotes -- simply nothing. Your dishonesty is documented in this thread, and in the linked threads.

Previously, you asked me to ask you questions. I asked. You did not answer to them. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)

In your mind, you have done no wrong.  That is why criminals do not haul themselves to jail. 


Anduck lies.  :/

Read the PMs again.  Notice where I type "ah, until this point'?  That is when I lost trust for him.  Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating.  If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.

How? Where?


Don't you "distrust" me because I "scammed an auction" and "admitted to lying in PM" -- like your ratings towards me state?
Here are the private messages. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761)
Would you want to tell us why you lost trust for me exactly?


I answered you immediately after your "ah, until this point" message. Why are you even trying to lie about this? ...
You blocked me after my reply. You ended our private communications by not responding to me and by blocking me.

Fine.  Around a week later, with just one immediate answer from him and nothing further, I changed my rating.

A distinction without a difference. 

Stop twisting my words to make things up.

Where have I twisted your words? What have I made up?

You claim something to be true that turns out to be provably false, get caught, and you still have the balls to go and insult me. You're wrong, and your ego (I guess) is too big for you to admit it. Same thing (I guess) with your ratings.
Similar thing happened earlier with that fake quote you made up, and after acknowledging it being a fake, you claimed someone else faked it while everyone could see that it was you. (You manually edited the quote to be from me. Nobody else -- only you.)

Now stop derailing and try to back up your dishonest & derogatory claims about me.

Then they don't belong in DT.  Although if you look at the trust feedback that accounts like owlcatz have left me (actual trust system abuse by a user account you Anduck have added trust to) I can see why they'd be afraid to stand up against the troublemakers around here and those who support them.

It is pointless to attempt to have a discussion with vod especially about this. Contact those who put vod on their trust list.

I would not even take what he says seriously.

I've traded with owlcatz and found him trustworthy to do trades with. As you can see, my rating towards owlcatz is from 2016 (when I traded with him). Owlcatz' trust feedback towards you (and from you to him) have happened in the last 6 months if I see it right. I've not been following what happened there, so I'm not familiar with the case that resulted in those ratings. OgNasty, do you have any suggestions? How to improve DT system?

This from a narcissist.  Rules and morality don't apply to you.   ::)

Very nice of you to show up in a thread titled "Trust system abuse".

Did you send this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479

Or how about your petty trust rating on eoakland where you've been proven wrong quite comprehensively? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754

You highlighted a big reason why the DT system is struggling.  You had no issue removing your trust for me in spite of all that I've done for users of this forum (safeguarding literally tens of thousands of BTC), but owlcatz is trustworthy?  I've seen other DT members use this same tired excuse for why they continue to trust individuals who clearly don't deserve it.  Maybe you should start by looking at your own ratings instead of trying to overhaul the system.  Change starts in the mirror.



Comments like this are why nobody takes your opinion seriously and why I immediately added you to my exclusion list a long time ago.

I don't really care that much if you take my opinion seriously or not.

Did you send that message? It's a fairly simple question relevant to your dispute with owlcatz.

And - immediately? Immediately after what? Immediately after I posted the counter-rating for owlcatz?

Politics.  You can have two people with the same morals and same hatred of scammers, but one little cultural slight or misread of a post and BOOM - they are now fighting with each other.

I'm not sure how the system can be changed for the better without letting the multiple account Quickscammer take over.  :/

How about you start by re-reading our PM conversation and try to spot where you misunderstood/misread me. Hints are in the Reputation thread where I explained three times how you illogically misunderstood me and continued to base your accusations on that.

Unfortunately, I think it will take other DT1 members being attacked the way I was and deciding that they are ok getting hit with a little red in order to be part of the solution instead of the problem.  DT1 members expanding their trust networks to include more trusted longterm members who haven't engaged in shady behavior is a start.

suchmoon is a bottom feeder. She will only side with those who she perceives to be more powerful in a dispute as a way for her to gain additional power. She will troll those who she perceives to be less powerful by twisting irrelevant facts/portions of a dispute, and will create a tangent regarding said irrelevant facts, derailing threads. Also similar to Lauda, suchmoon will troll those who she perceives to be weak.   

Suchmoon is a SHE?? :o

---

theymos, you should really reply to this topic..

---

I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory.

I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations.

---

What you see is as untrusted ratings is not equal to what others see. This is what the concern anduck has.

Thank you, Quicksy, but I feel like you might be projecting a little bit here. The "power" that you speak of appears to be very important to you. Not so much to me. I do perceive you as weak though. Intellectually, ethically, socially weak. Maybe that's why you're so much fun to troll.

Anyway, this is a fairly good attempt to obfuscate Og's shenanigans, I'll give you that. The topic of the thread is "Trust system abuse" BTW. I do believe Og is abusing the trust system by (1) spreading malicious rumors about owlcatz; and (2) refusing to back down for eoakland.

What's your take on that?

Suchmoon does have the female gender symbol as an icon.   :)

Dude.. Talking about rape is not cool man... Seriously, take that shit down.

---

I never noticed that..  :-[
Anyhow, Vod what do you have to say on this:

DUDE he is a PEDOPHILE, he is doxed and left unpunished

FTFY

There is a report from one of his (ex)coworkers as well

What is with you and the rape fantasies?  Esp your nephew?  That's sick man.  :/



No, there isn't.  You are just very gullible.  ;)

From the looks of things, vod would rather respond to the trolls in an attempt to derail this thread, likely to avoid others seeing the underlying facts.

And right on clue, the other member who likes to use children against other people.  :/

I don't want to derail this thread I just want to remind people about his activities, please go on ignoring me and his replies

My trust rating and merit score already do that.  :)

Make sure other inmates will know it too

If you see DT2 members are abusing other people and also misusing the trust system and you see no actions taken by DT1 members who'd included them on DT2, you should tag those DT1 members. currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.

However this whole thing could be avoided if Vod could give a chance to Anduck in the first place. instead of countering Vod's feedback, ask him to forgive Anduck and let us all to move on.

Have you PMed the DT1 members yet?

E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread.

But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list.

OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them.

I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works.  Let me try and simplify.

If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that.  
If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating.  
If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that.

*Here's where it gets tricky.

If you don't agree with someone else's ratings, you can exclude them from your trust network.
If you agree with someone's trust ratings, you can include them in your trust network.

What you shouldn't do is...

Leave someone negative ratings because you don't like their trust ratings.
Leave someone a positive rating to counter someone else's rating.

There are of course extenuating circumstances for every action and that is where the importance of judgement and decentralization comes into play.  The goal here should be to create a network of trust that accurately reflects an individual's trustworthiness.

*Do not confuse excluding someone from your trust network with leaving negative trust ratings.

Theymos has said in the past it is okay to counter a ln unjust negative with a positive as only a small number of people can get someone removed from DT and excluding someone yourself won’t solve the underlying problem.

A positive that counters a negative should probably also include an exclusion of the person who gave the unjust negative.

A negative to counter a positive is ridiculous as is a negative for “not trusting” someone, barring extreme circumstances.

So if one rating seems incorrect then ALL ratings are incorrect? Do you even logic?

Here are my thoughts:

A negative rating means that you don't trust the person and by extension, their feedback. It doesn't make sense when you trust what the person says (but also don't really).
In reverse, someone can be trustworthy but you may choose to disregard what they say, resulting in an exclusion.

For me, leaving negatives to another individual requires any of the following (though not only restricted to):
a) Extremely shady behavior
b) Outright scams
c) Behavior that induces harm to other persons, the forum or objects of possession
d) Any action that casts a reasonable amount of doubt upon its moral standards or legitimacy (i.e. account sales)

---

In the case of Vod, I countered their rating because I disagreed with it. However, that doesn't mean that I don't trust Vod. It also doesn't mean that I don't trust their ratings. Rather, it was a single piece of feedback that I wanted object against.

The act of exclusion will affect all the user's feedback, not just the one that someone disagrees with. I don't think this is the way to go.
The act of giving the user a negative will not change the feedback and thus that also is not the way to change ratings that one disagrees with.
Counter-ratings make sense in this regard. Don't you think so?

I believe the counter ratings actually hurt the system. I know theymos has stated they are acceptable in some cases but I think they do more harm than good.

What would be the right course of action if there was a rating that you disagreed with, then? If a user was particularly unflinching in regards to changing it, then there don't seem to be many options.

You message the leaver of said rating and talk it over. If that doesn't work, you talk it over with the D1 that sponsors that D2 member. If nothing there, you move on and agree to disagree.
Seriously, all you did was keep controversy going but turned up a notch. I didn't agree with your counter, should I have left a counter-counter to be counter-counter-countered by another?
Not everyone will agree with every rating because we are all individuals with our own ideals.

Why would anyone agree with ratings that have proved lies as reason?


Also, as you can see, reasons stated in his ratings towards me have nothing to do with what he claims currently (in the quoted post below) to be the origin for the "distrust".

I don't think that ever works. I have seen a lot of people getting tagged, and a few ratings have been illegitimate and they have never been removed, even after having discussions. I don't want to point out names but yes that is the case. Sometimes, countering seems like a good option.

A few DT members have a lot of ego, doesn't matter if they are trustworthy. That ego does a lot of harm than good. This is one of the main reasons why the trust system doesn't function well.

Can we agree to disagree on how to handle disagreements?

There can be different levels of disagreement I think:

1) I disagree with the rating and I wouldn't have posted such rating but I can see why the sender did - nothing to do here expect perhaps comment on the forum.
2) I disagree with the rating and I think there is additional context needed - I can post a neutral for the recipient.
3) I disagree with the rating and I think it shouldn't be there - that's where the counter-rating comes in handy.
4) I disagree with the rating and I don't trust the sender's opinion in general (unlikely just because of one rating) - I can exclude the sender from my trust list.

Escalating to DT1 may be a bit harsh if it's merely a matter of one rating, and merely talking to the sender may be a bit lacking if the sender is stubborn.

It does more than you think, I've personally done this many times over the years with good results.
Nothing you can do with ego.

Absolutely.

This forum is a wonderful place (i'm serious :))
A lot of good people willing to share knowledge and help. But, the power abuse here is a fact, and always worried me more than scammers or anything else. I've learned a lot here and became sentimentaly attachmented to my account.
Sincerly it's fells really bad be named as a "untrustworthy" by completly random reasons.

One rating can tell a lot about the legitimacy of raters' other sent ratings. Would you trust a person who blatantly lies, tries to cover his lies, provably fails at it, still keeps on with the lies, and so on? Even if this happens only against one person, it's not just being "stubborn" anymore. It reveals so much.

I would trust Vod more than I would trust you if that's what you're angling at. I don't recall Vod bidding on his own auction or insinuating that I'm your alt, for example. Besides I can read and I have read many of Vod's ratings and references and I find them very useful, even ones that I may disagree with. Disagreement being a concept that you appear to have no ability to handle.

Perhaps if you weren't lying yourself you'd have a point but you lost that pages ago.

We all know that people use their accounts to earn money in this forum, we also know that people are misusing merit and trade them with their alt accounts to get higher rank accounts just to earn more money.

What makes any of you think that DT members are not farming trust, or are not misusing the trust to have green trusted accounts either to sell or use them to scam people?
What makes you think that people are not abusing the trust system? more you try to expose them more they would support themselves, now trust system is in the hands of a few people and they are making rules to suit their long term agendas. they have made us all to believe that when you get tagged by a DT member you are automatically a scammer, what they don't know is that people can see who are the real scammers.

---

@Anduck, you have made your point, people know that Vod is a trust abuser and nobody is doing anything to stop him, that means they agree with him, those who disagree with him would either receive green trust from him or he would simply counter their feedbacks with negative trust. the fact is that Vod is a bully and when you see that he keeps at bullying others and do nothing to stop him, you are also a bully.

Yes I know: digaran if you don't like this system you are free to leave and start your own forum. guess what? day after day you people are losing your credibility and soon you'll become irrelevant to the crowd.

What is my suggestion though? I suggest that either a DT member tag Vod for misusing trust system or simply exclude him from your trust list until he comes to his senses and fixes the issues he has caused. but I guess exclusion is not going to happen because DT1 members would lose some green trust scores if they exclude Vod, so it's in their best interest if they keep him on DT2.

If this is your honest opinion then you need to absolutely rethink the power you give to positive trust scores.

If DT1 members don't trust Vod's opinion then they won't include him on their trust list, or potentially exclude him. End of story. You want to get him off DefaultTrust? Talk to DT1 members.

Here are the DT1 members that have included Vod:
HostFat
dooglus
Cyrus

Here are the DT1 members that have excluded Vod:

I have pointed this out multiple times, to which I was promptly ignored. I would suggest ignoring digaran. His responses to my posts in other threads makes me believe he is trying to elicit a reaction from me and is trying to make people upset aka he is a troll.

Look at your trust!  Only a fool would believe anything you type.  :/

tl;dr: There are bad people. DT members are people. Therefore DT members are bad. Proof be damned.

Not to mention that Vod has tagged dozens of people for shitposting. he also tagged Anduck to say that he is still a scammer, he also tagged me with nonsense, read the comment and see for yourself.

Vod also has an army of shills(those members who got tagged with green by Vod).
Difference between Vod and Quickseller is that Vod uses green trust to make people to support him and Quickseller uses his own alts to shill for himself.
Remember that you are always a troll when you disagree with them. but as soon as you get on DT, your opinion would be respected by default. DT members would never tag other DT members for their abuse of trust system but they would tag non-DT members for leaving untrusted feedback or saying something which they don't like.

???
What have I been doing with my feedback to Anduck?
What happened between BAC and mprep?
Lauda and shorena?

I imagine that the majority of people are oblivious to the trust system and probably also the merit system.

Slightly off-topic and no offence intended - but each time I see "internal investigator"  I think of a colonoscopy.

https://i.imgur.com/ibaL17e.png

Usually those people who are on DT list try to translate the trust system in a way to suit their agendas, E.G, negative trust means that certain individual doesn't trust you, then people would click on trust page and read the feedback to see why exactly they don't trust you and they will realize who is the untrustworthy person.

Now on topic:
Is there anybody from DT who'd like to again counter Vod's feedback on Anduck to see if Vod is going to further abuse Anduck and again tags him red to say that Anduck is still a scammer?

Note what I said before about expecting to get a tip from Anduck, it was a sarcasm, refer to certain somebody's signature where they say: tipping address. lol.

Perfect... that's what trust is all about !!!
--
Just wondering... i remember Darkstar_ left a +ve trust feedback for Anduck... why did he removed it or changed his mind?

Obviously, because digaran's persuasiveness slammed me DarkStar_ so badly that I they realized I they were a trust abuser all along and henceforth deleted my their rating.

Perfect, now I also removed my tag on DarkStar_, now it's time for actmyname, please remove your tag on Anduck. also Vod has to remove his second tag on Anduck now that DarkStar_ has removed his.

Why I ask from actmyname to remove his positive trust from Anduck? because actmyname has no business countering people's negative trust, that would be favoritism and could result in abuse. we don't know whether actmyname took some money to counter Vod's feedback or not, so it would be good if actmyname removes the tag to be clear of suspicion of bribery and misuse of trust system.

How does that make any sense?

Simply because there is a possibility, I have to remove it?

Then shit, I might as well never send out feedback at all if there's always a possibility that it's because of a bribe.

---

I'm not removing my counter unless Vod removes his feedback. That's the purpose of the counter.

Then what happens to Vod's positive trust on you for countering his feedback? I guess that will remain in place like almost every positive feedback Vod has left for others?
If Vod is not going to teach us how we could forgive other people by removing his red tags on Anduck, I'd like to suggest another DT2 member to counter Vod's second tag and wait to see if Vod is going to counter that as well. if he does that then clearly DT1 members would have to consider excluding him from their trust list. because Vod doesn't want to be a productive part of this community and all he wants is to have the final saying on every matter which is not even something that the community wants.

There is no second tag. The negative that Vod left after DarkStar_'s was to counter their feedback which I actually agree with. There should only really be one counter-rating. All subsequent ratings should be regarded as regular trust ratings.

I'm here to update you all on the recent events, it seems that Vod has also removed his second tag on Anduck after DarkStar_ removed his.
Here are some facts:
Recently some DT2 members are tagging people based on past events and misbehavior, for example: Vod has tagged Anduck for something from the past. actmyname is also tagging people for their wrongdoings from the past. are we going to allow them to do this and let them damage other people's reputation while they get positive trust left and right for doing this and others would get negative trust?

Anduck is not a scammer, he actually never scammed anybody, there is no complaints against Anduck for attempting to scam anybody, this is based on Vod's judgement which is really poor given that we should trust his feedbacks and accept them to be accurate by default.

Counter rating is stupid. It doesn't change the bad rating and messes up the system. Correct way is to make bad ratings untrusted.

Why shouldn't there be multiple "counter ratings" against a bad negative rating? Why should only one DT member have a say in there?

Isn't that precisely the way it's supposed to be? ???

I assume it's to prevent abuse by the cartel that apparently exists here in the forum. Counter ratings are fine as they are good for when someone may disagree with a negative, but can't justify removing the user who left the rating off their trust list, because they generally agree with the rest of the feedback they have left, and still trust that member.

I "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" may not be equivalent to, but certainly is an emphasized version of "I don't trust this guy", semantically.
At least that's the way I understand it.
Then again, I've always been known for shooting first and asking questions later 8)
https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMi1jZGM0MjBmYjA3NThkM2Ez.png

Generally, in most cases excluding them from your trust list would be the best option if it's the simple matter of "I don't trust this person". However, I would agree that sometimes a negative to warn others might be the better option. Entirely subjective of course, but if you believe someone is gearing up to scam or has shown scammy behaviour without scamming then leaving negative feedback could probably be justified to a certain extent. Which is probably why Vod's feedback is justified, and the only thing I see that could be considered misleading is the fact that he's stated Anduck scammed, although this entirely dependson your interpretation of what a scam is, and whether you consider cultural differences.  

I'll need to catch up with the thread just in case I've missed the justification from Anduck why the item wasn't sold right after the auction, and when this was inquired by another user he replied to the user to send him a personal message, and stated the item was not sold. Again, this depends on your interpretation of things, and you may come to the conclusion that Anduck had no intentions of selling the item to the higher bidder which he since has. After all, if he was truly bidding on the item, and won it he wouldn't want to sell it again would he? There's a justifiable answer to this, but I would be interested what Anduck says instead of giving him this information outright.

No.
Your trust list does not say anything about how trustworthy a person is.
Your trust list should include people who "give good trust", i.e. whose trust ratings are useful for yourself and possibly others.
You could even add a known Scammer to your trust list if, and only if this person is careful about giving meaningful trust ratings (even though I would advise against it).
Your trust list should explicitly exclude people whose positive trust ratings have been given to untrustworthy people or whose negative ratings have been given as "retaliation" or whatever.

That's the way I use my trust list. I also offer to delete negative ratings once I see "betterment" or a reasonable explanation for someones behavior. I even sometimes delete "old" trust ratings when I no longer deem them appropriate, maybe because the user in question has "changed" in my eyes. Obviously, I can only do the latter for users I know quite well from our local community.

You make a good point that I completely overlooked when I made that post. Although, I would like to argue that your very likely not going to include people you don't trust no matter if they leave accurate feedback or not. I would argue that they both go hand in hand.

I've deleted old feedback a few times. However, I normally tend to leave an update especially if we've made a trade recently because after all we did complete a deal, and they showed they were trustworthy in that deal. Honestly, I'm not very active on the trust front anymore, and mostly rely on others to do it for me now. (Thanks!)

I generally don't have an issue with leaving negative trust with very little evidence of wrongdoing (or planned wrongdoing) in order to warn others of general suspicions while an investigation is ongoing (for a short time), provided that after a few days, the rating is either removed, or justified with more solid proof the person is a scammer. This time can be used to either gather more information or ask questions about suspicious activity.

My concern about using the "I don't trust someone" standard, is that it encourages a mob mentality and removes any kind of accountability to those leaving ratings -- both of which seem to be a problem as of recently. It also makes it much easier to leave ratings for personal reasons, which appear to be happening at a greater frequency as of recently.

If you are unable to articulate how someone is a scammer, as a general rule, a negative rating is not appropriate.

So when are you going to remove all those unarticulated "scammer" tags without references?

That needs a bigger heart... and who has that?

https://i.imgur.com/p2RLAf1m.jpg

If you look at the way the trust system is built with both trust ratings and a trust list, the latter is the mechanism to cope with the issue you've described.
If you deal "mobster" trust, you'll be excluded from trust lists.
Then again, since most people don't seem to really understand the system, and even less use it accordingly, the elegant mechanics of the trust system just don't seem to work in real life.

That's a very wise general rule, which would be appropriate for displaying on the page where you leave trust ratings :)

Have you seen the dozens of negative trust ratings that scammer has left others with no reference?

Why would you reward such a hypocrite with merit?   ???

Vod. Let's not let important posts get drowned.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39588914#msg39588914 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39588914#msg39588914)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40529245#msg40529245 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40529245#msg40529245)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40537284#msg40537284 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40537284#msg40537284)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40538407#msg40538407 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40538407#msg40538407)


Stop derailing and try to back up your dishonest & derogatory claims about me. For one example, your current rating to me is inconsistent with your reasoning e.g. referenced in the fifth link above.

Everyone: See the links for further pointers, or read this thread completely. No benefit of doubt anymore: Vod should be dropped from Default Trust list. Untrustworthy and dishonest people do not belong to DT list in any case. No matter if they rate correctly most of the times. When rated provably incorrectly (dishonest rating after scummy blackmailing attempt), and their ego is too big to go back to acknowledge and fix their wrongdoings, they simply do not belong to Default Trust list.

Quickseller abusing the trust system is on topic.

Yes I satire much. :/

I'm here to suggest a way out for Anduck, you could easily go and farm trust, here is how:

Find a DT member and do some trading with them, they will leave you a positive trust and nobody could ever counter that if you don't bid on your own auctions or do something tag worthy. don't wait for Vod's forgiveness, after all he is on DT because of bullying other people.

Taking out loans or doing trades that you don't want or need for the sole purpose of appearing more trustworthy is a pretty untrustworthy thing to do. In all likelihood this kind of behaviour would simply earn you more red trust.

It's a stupid idea, but I'm not surprised in the least that digaran would suggest it.

So you saying it is wrong to do trades with DT members in hopes of receiving positive trust from them after getting tagged red? would you prefer buying trust by the means of counter feedback?
So you also agree that people shouldn't go and farm trust after getting tagged? because people have done this for years, if you don't believe me, look at several positive trusts left on profiles after they got tagged red. or rather look at counter feedbacks left on profiles after getting tagged red.

I'm not sure about o_e_l_e_o and others, but I would certainly prefer if you posted less of your made up nonsense and more of actual facts and proof, if any.

We can but dream.

Can't allow DT members like Vod to abuse their position. Read this thread to learn what's going on. Start from e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40906371#msg40906371 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40906371#msg40906371)

Theymos wont listen to your moaning,i was tagged because of the alts accounts,didnt cheat bounties nor scammed people..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4624272.0 hilariousandco who is a global moderator does know that my reds are inappropriate.
The Pharmacist has his own rules,this forum is being run by these DT Members.

If theres only one can remove these abusers it is Theymos.

Bump.

Ideas are needed to make trust system better. As said before, I think adding more DT1 members would improve the situation. Of course that drops the "trustness" as perceived e.g. by forum staff, but on the other hand the trust system is supposed to be used in a way where people should make their own trust lists/networks instead of trusting default trust list. In a way, adding more DT1 members would improve both of these goals: there would be less fear of getting e.g. "dropped" (from the DT list) for arbitrary/silly reasons, more decentralization (wider amount of people "in charge") etc. AND people would want to adjust / make own trust lists because they would detect *individual* wrongdoing making them want to correct it. Such "individual wrongdoing" doesn't affect many in the current system, so it is largely dismissed in the community.
Maybe there should be official guidelines about the *community acceptable* use of trust system. Then people would better know how to use the trust system. E.g. will you rate or will you not rate, who will you exclude, who will you not. Do you want to signal others something or do you want to record something for your own information, what are the "offences" to earn red trust, what means getting positive trust --and so on.

As an example (my personal experience) about the problems, there's this case where Vod rates me provably dishonestly. He also claims other things and presents no evidence, proof or anything to back those claims. And he blackmailed me. Vods standing in the DT system is too strong as people who have added him there are either inactive or do not care. This means that Vod can keep on doing whatever he wants, and everyone knows it. It shouldn't be like this. One shouldn't be able to freely harass others as a salary for doing good deeds for the community. Red trust from DT1/DT2 member has (or can have) significant negative effect on the target, that's the reality right now.

For adding more DT1 members, theymos needs to personally trust people. And, no one has been added in DT1 for months now, if not years. DeaDTerra was removed from DT1.  theymos wants it to be decentralized but the trust system is broken, and I am no fan of it. Its used for everything but for what it was initially intended for, which is both good and bad. People rely on the trust system when not required, and don't rely on it when its most required. Some people actually want TheOldScammerTag to come back. That would make the trusts system to be centralized, but I would say its no different than the current "decentralized" trust system.

What do you mean by this,emphasis on the "trustness as perceived e.g. by forum staff". I find it a little hard to comprehend, as I am not a native English speaker.

Nobody banned you in this forum for Alt accounts , so forum rules are followed.
Since I do not see you made your Alt account public and probably you cheated the bounties and get busted, so here the DT ratings come into picture.

The trust system is like a nuclear weapon..
Some times it is used on others if they don't step in line..
It turns scoffs between old members into MAD, mutually assured destruction, wars..
Adding more DT members is like nuclear proliferation..
If you have nukes and they don't, you don't want them to get nukes..
Unless you are empowering allies, puppet states.. 

It is against the interest of nuclear trust holders to spread it, making themselves more common and less powerful relatively, while those without trust will naturally be in favor of joining the party..
If their was a vote the elites would lose hands down but this ain't no democracy, they own the media..

I mean the factor of how trusted the DT is (= how trusted are the people in DT) seen from the DT administrator point of view. It is only their view, but they are still in full control of DT.

It looks like a ton of new people, especially non-English speakers, think that DT are staff/moderators. They're not entirely wrong. After all, DT members *are* capable of effectively "banning" accounts from conducting any business here.

These issues are still unsolved. DT system needs major changes. It's a huge mess and power fight around the DT right now. Please do something about it. Some measures to disincentivize abusal of DT is needed. E.g. in my case, Vod apparently continues to do what he does after misusing and lying about me, and others, via the DT system. He should not be in the DT -- then his lies would be almost completely irrelevant.

That's not true, though.  I've seen cases where people with negs from DT have no trouble whatsoever doing deals here, depending on what the feedback was for, of course.  A lot of members apparently don't even check a person's trust page before deciding whether to transact with that person--and that's how many of them get scammed, too.

In your case, I would check carefully to see that you hadn't employed a shill on an auction of yours before I bid on it, but otherwise I'd have no issues dealing with you because of all the other positives you've received.  Negative trust from DT members isn't the kiss of death a lot of people think it is.

It's not such a huge mess, though there are problems.  I've had to remove some negatives that I've left when evidence showed that I left them wrongly, and I suspect there will be more.  Vod's not part of that sort of issue, IMO.  His feedbacks are generally very accurate, and he has a reputation of being quite fair. 

However, I agree with his feedback on you and that what you did was extremely scammy.  There's no auction house in the world that I know of that would allow someone to place a bid on his own auction--even employing shill bidders is almost universally either frowned upon or illegal.  If you realize what you did was wrong (and I haven't been following all of your posts on this) and haven't repeated it, Vod might be kind enough to remove his neg, though I wouldn't count on it.  His rating was honest.  But you left not one, but two retaliatory negs on him and I don't expect that's going to sway his opinion in your favor.

You're being intellectually dishonest. It's irrelevant to talk about marginal cases. Of course negative trust affects the ability to conduct business, and in many cases, prevents people from conducting business. Obviously one doesn't want to trade with someone whose account page has a bright red notice saying "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!". This of course doesn't mean that *everyone* will be unable to conduct business with *everyone*. Some people see through bullshit red ratings, but for big majority it's a huge red flag and trading business is conducted elsewhere.


Alright. I don't really understand why you're highlighting that you "would check carefully to see that you hadn't employed a shill on an auction of yours". As you *should* know by now, regardless of the lies presented by some idiot, I've not shill-bidded. I've bidded on my own auction on my own account as a measure of concealed reserve price. This was one-time case 2-3 years ago. This is completely normal in various auctions, but not in bitcointalk auctions -- which I learned back then. Btw, I don't care about the shitty account and trust games people play here -- I'm not part of that.

Someone not too dense would maybe understand to look at other factors here. Isn't it a bit weird that someone pops up and starts red-rating after years since some event he wasn't even part of and actually commented earlier that he saw nothing wrong in the said event? Please read this thread and follow the links to find out that Vod is bullshitting and nobody gives a shit. In some other cases where Vod nor I are in, people have feared to say anything against the wrongdoer because getting red-rates is extremely easy and getting dropped from DT2 is very easy too. It's so very fragile for active members and on the other hand so damn rigid if you're on DT1 or DT2'd by people not actively around anymore.


It doesn't present to an individual as a huge mess unless you're a victim of it. Many are. Naturally you don't feel the pain, because your say actually weights, due to being in DT. You have the tools to work against potential abusers, which there are not too many, because who would go against someone with a gun? I'm with no gun, so Vod can currently freely misuse his position against me.


You agree with the proven lies he presents in his feedback?

I've not scammed anyone, I've not acted in a scammy way. But I know it's easy to think like that when you don't think about it properly. There's absolutely nothing scammy in having a concealed reserve price, presented as the bidder bidding on the auction. Auction rules are same for everyone. Vod also agreed that I did nothing scammy in there. Later he started, regardless of that, using it as a weapon against me due to other reasons. This auction event is the only thing he can find about me that can remotely trigger emotions like it does on e.g. you. Think about it and understand that self-bidding on an auction carries no scammy behavior at all.  In any case, this Vod's rating towards me is not even about that. Read the damn thread!


His rating is proven to be dishonest. Here's the said rating: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter."

First of all, nobody was scammed. Auction was held according to the stated rules. In my country it's perfectly normal for the auctioneer to take part in the auction too. Auctioneer is only carrying the technical process of the auction -- nothing more. He has no different position, when he's bidding, than any other bidder. And again, that auction event is only a tool used by Vod, as he has absolutely nothing else to present that would trigger emotions on people about me. Secondly, I've *not* admitted to any lying in any messages whatsoever. I've not lied. It's complete bullshit by Vod. How is that "honest" for you?



Why are you commenting things you don't know about?  Vod rated me twice and removed the other rating. Someone positively rated me which triggered Vod to reinstate the red trust score on me by sending a new red rating. Later Vod removed it as the positive rating was also removed after "discussions" with DT.

My two ratings are about two separate issues. First him calling me a scammer for no reason, and second for acting in an incredibly unresponsible, pathetic and scummy way while being on DT.

Whether or not the practice was scammy has be discussed ad nauseam already in this thread. I would refer back to my previous statement on the matter:

---

I don't remember if we got an answer to the question of whether you sold the item to the highest bidder that wasn't you at the price of their original bid. If you didn't, then they were scammed out of a fair win. Regardless, however, a scam does not have to have happened for someone to be labelled a scammer, which is commonplace across the forum.

Also, the auction was not held according to the stated rules, as you never stated your intentional to bid on your own auction.

---

The Pharmacist received negative trust from a DT member literally last week. However, he admitted he was in the wrong and made amends, and so now the red trust is no more. You flat out refuse to admit that not disclosing your intention to bid on your own auction was untrustworthy behavior (which it is in the eyes of the law, as I've outlined above).

Read the quote you quoted. There's nothing unlawful or scammy in this behavior. Not providing advance notice doesn't make it unlawful or scammy. Also, for the sake of it, I'm not US citizen. Also, as I've said earlier, I will (and have since) presented clearly if there's a reserve price of any kind. This is to increase transparency, as concealed reserve price is not common here.

Btw, the same section you quoted also says:



The item was sold to the highest bidder, that being me. Second highest bidder did not win the item. Yes, I was also the auctioneer of the item. Your definition of a scam, or attempted scam, or whatever related to scamming, seems to be out of the line.

You didn't disclose the conditions of your auction in advance. That is a deceptive practice and it's great to have a warning on your trust page so that future bidders on your auctions could decide to not waste their time with you if they don't want to get cheated out of their win.

Read the message above.

I did not specify that the auction is without reserve. As you can see, the US law sees auctions without specific notice of no reserve as having reserve by default. You don't know much about auctions when you're claiming that deceptive actions were done by me.

Btw, how deceptive do you see Vod's proven lies and scam accusations? Faked quotes, faked attributions? Lies on top of lies? Why don't you comment any of that?

Irrelevant, since we are discussing a previously unannounced self bid and not a reserve price. Your practice was at best untrustworthy, and if it were a real auction house, illegal.

Trust system doesn't enforce the law or even forum rules. Vod thinks your behavior is scammy. I appreciate Vod's warning because regardless of what the law says I wouldn't want to waste my time on auction where you can decide to cancel it at any time.

All you've done here for 19 pages is attack anyone who disagrees with you. Frankly that makes you look less trustworthy.

In a real auction house, completely normal. Being a technical operator of the auction process doesn't add or remove any capability to act as a bidder. Your opinions have no say in this. In any case, nobody was scammed and Vod is spreading bullshit in various ways. How about going back to on-topic and starting to digest that (the abuse done by DT members)?

I'm aware of that the trust system has nothing to do with following or enforcing the law. As you can see, the US law was brought up by o_e_l_e_o and I was replying to him.

Vod "thinks" that my behavior is scammy, yes. Earlier he said he sees nothing wrong in that. How much do you trust someone whose "opinion" changes like that? His opinion suddenly changed after I told him that I don't specifically trust him. I think he thought he had earned some status in my eyes -- he hadn't but now he has.



Untrue. Read the thread. There's discussion about the possible ways to improve DT system and reduce abuse of it. Vod is a nice example of how the DT system is abused. His current rating towards me consists of a quite unwarranted claim of me scamming someone, and of proven lies where he claims I've admitted to scamming. Try to see the forest instead of one tree.

There are exceptions to all of this, however in general, someone who joins the forum for the purpose of conducting business will also otherwise contribute to the community, but only as long as they can continue conducting business. So if something is substantially impeding their ability to conduct business, they will stop contributing otherwise to the community. Also, on its face, having the warning to trade with extreme caution is going to prevent you from trading, and as such, many people will not even attempt to continue trading. This is not the case on this forum, however many other forums ban scammers from trading and some people may have seen elsewhere that those who are "tagged" as scammers cannot continue to trade. For those that attempt to continue trading after having their warning to trade with extreme caution on their profile and marketplace posts, few are able to conduct any meaningful business.   

Wrong thread?

Where does it say "extreme caution" on Anduck's profile?

It used to, and Vod even kept it so by posting a second negative rating (when someone countered his shit rating) to remove others' ability to "neutralize" it until my profile was red for the time Vod wanted. And right now he has reduced my "trust score" from dark green to yellow or something like that -- I don't even know because Vod is on my distrust list due to his illogical & dishonest conduct of rating people.

Can you start reading the material before commenting nonsense?

As a younger me once said:


You're insisting on being dishonest to your auction bidders. Deal with consequences.

There was no dishonesty. Can you stop being derogatory? It is absolutely not my fault that some power hungry child like Vod is allowed, by community, to misuse his position freely. You're trying to steer the narrative to paint me as the bad one. I don't know about your agenda, but you obviously have some reasons to completely ignore all proven wrongdoing by Vod. It's one of the main topics of this thread, making you ignore it is even more bizarre.

At best (for your talking point), not enough transparency and then some expectations were not met in that auction you keep grinding about. Yet no scamming or dishonesty happened. Nothing was specified about a reserve, doesn't make it dishonest to have it. What's the default: no reserve or reserve? In US auctions the latter, if that matters for you. Anyway, since that one occasion 2+ years ago, I've always mentioned which way it is. And again, this thread is not about that. This is about Vod and others abusing and misusing the DT system and ways to make DT better to avoid such abuse.

This thread is about obvious misuse and proven lies & dishonesty done by DT members, presenting a case of DT2 member abusing his position against me. There are various other cases too, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Possibly something to do with your silence regarding Vod's DT abuse/misuse. But that's not related to this thread, really. The problem is in the system, not really in specific people using in it.

Again I'm asking you: Are you going to read the material before commenting? Or will you just keep on slandering me and derailing the discussion?