Bitcoin Forum

iCEBREAKER recently left Vod the following feedback:

"Constantly posts lies about TECSHARE in an effort to have him removed from the default trust list. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy."

(This is clearly mocking  the negative feedback Vod has left TECSHARE).

In response, Vod has left negative feedback for iCEBREAKER:

"Possibly hacked account.

Posted the following feedback on my account: "Constantly posts lies about TECSHARE in an effort to have him removed from the default trust list. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis. Not trustworthy."

TECSHARE isn't on the default trust list. Not sure why this user would be lying about me in this way."

-------------

Vod, can you please explain how iCEBREAKER "lied" about you?

Lol, what a child.

Once again, you are missing the point entirely by reading a couple of words individually and literally.

Please re-read the thread, specially the 'This is clearly mocking  the negative feedback Vod has left TECSHARE' part. iCEBREAKER is expressing the absurdity of Vod's negative feedback by copying it and applying it to Vod.

Please also read http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parody and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire first.

Hmmm, I would say this is probably not appropriate. He claims that it is a possibly hacked account, however his password was not changed in the last 30 days.

I think that Icebreaker's trust left for Vod is probably a misunderstanding of the entire situation, however he is entitled to his opinion about Vod's left feedback for TECHSHARE.

I think Vod should remove his trust for Icebreaker as this is more of an example of him trying to silence critics.

I would say this is somewhat of an example of leaving trust because of "trust abuse" and anyone who leaves those kinds of reports should not have any of their trust reports relied upon 

You've not changed yours in 30 days, so your password could be compromised.
Therefor shall we all leave negative feedback on your trust. You could very well be a hacked account :O

I don't know what is this , but let us wait the new improvement of theymos.  I understood that trust ratings are not moderated  ,so it is  not effective  open a thread here.

...But default trust is moderated, and VODs actions here are relevant to his standing accusations of default trust abuse.

Looking at the feedback that icebreaker left it looks like it matches what Vod left on TECHSHARE exactly (with the exception of who is being discussed). I do find it strange that he would leave the exact same trust rating like that.

Agreed. Vod isn't really helping the situation here and this is just going to add fuel to the fire and perpetuate this entire commotion.


The Default trust list is moderated in the sense that theymos and those on it can remove and add people, but feedback left usually isn't. The trust list works by adding those who appear trustworthy and removing those that don't (or cannot handle the responsibility of being on there).

DefaultTrust is moderated. Feedback is not moderated.

This is the 5th time today you have misread a post by literally interpreting it, or interpreting it in some completely absurd way.


So yes, mocking the feedback Vod left TECShARE.

Lying requires intent to mislead.

Making a statement that someone may interpret differently, is not lying when there is no intent to mislead.

That's because you choose to be disruptively pedantic instead of focusing on the point of this thread, which is this feedback being inappropriate.

Or, by negligence. If I have a duty to make my instructions clear (ie by saying the word fo-our and not four), its still my fault if its interpreted incorrectly. Anyway.... can people stop prodding the Vod please, someone's going to lose an arm sooner or later.

So you're okay with people being hit with negative trust if they criticize Vod in a meaningful way, for something that he should be criticized for?

Have you considered that maybe VOD is the one prodding too many people?

My account has not been hacked.

I've been here longer than Vod.

This is clearly an abuse of his default trust, which isn't supposed to be used for petulant tit-for-tat retaliation.

not that i am commenting on this situation but on the situation of trust as a whole. I think something needs to be done about trust that is clearly wrong and can be proven wrong. I think that this hinders the community moving forward and needs to be changed.

Like I said it is probably not appropiate. If you can provide a signed message from an address from an old unedited post then it would squash any hacking claim and if he wants to remain reputable then he will need to remove the trust. Although I do not think that should be necessary.

I do think this is essentially leaving trust because they are engaging in "trust abuse" and any trust left for this reason makes the person's trust left be unreliable

Vod didn't make the refutable claim that my account was in fact hacked.  He used the slimey, non-refutable "possibly hacked account" wording instead.

Every account on this board is "possibly hacked."  Even if I signed an old address, he could still weasel around that by claiming my private key was also "possibly hacked."

Look at my recent posts; they are written with the same pompous bombast they always have been.   :D

Vod is just being a dick, not making an honest accusation that he could reasonably believe to be true.

I think the easiest solution would be a signed message. I agree that the trust should really not have ever been left.

It is up to you but whatever you do I would suggest not starting any kind of hate campaign.

So are you to be fair. You troll a lot, this looks like more of the same. Do you feel that you can leave Vod feedback, but he isn't allowed to do the same?

You're assuming I've publicly posted an address which could be used to sign a message.

I haven't, except in PMs.

The recipients of those PMs (Carnth, DeadTerra and Friedcat) have better things to do than referee Vod's slap fights.

Even if they didn't, Vod could still say my private key was "possibly hacked" because it's not a refutable claim.

Given these facts, do you see an alternative besides "hate campaign?"   >:(

Maybe Thermos or BadBear will hold Vod to the same high standard they held TECSHARE, and remove him from default trust because of his demonstrated abusive malfeasance.

So suddenly icebreaker needs to prove himself. Just like u had to fight to prove u was Canadian.

BBecause some child with a god complex is abusing a system?
It's pretty clear what the system for. It says it right beside that little point you click.

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Not  because your  but hurt for being picked on or questioned

i think that is the easiest solution. Weather or not you want to try to prove your self this way is ultimately up to you.

I'm not condoning or affirming any action he has taken, its just a bit tiring when there's 6 different VOD threads in meta.

Than maybe something should be said or done.
labeling people scammers because you disagree or they disagree with you is an abuse of the system and an abusive use of power

How can I prove that my account hasn't been "possibly hacked?"   ???

As I've already tried to explain, it is not a refutable claim, short of metaphysical certainty.   :P

I cannot prove my account is impossible to hack, although common sense indicates very few hackers would be capable of emulating my distinctive writing style.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not he accused.

Vod made the accusation, so let him prove it.

Your suggestion that I prove myself innocent is obnoxious and contrary to logic.  Sorry, nothing personal.  I know you are trying to help, but IMO you are doing it wrong.

Maybe Thermos could send a "Have you been hacked?" email to my account's address.  That wouldn't prove anything, but perhaps be Good Enough.

I still don't see how any of vod's recent trust ratings fits with "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."

I agree.

you could possibly give someone like tomatocage access to your account to see the PM with your address that you could later sign a message with.

Is this somewhat of an invasion of privacy? Yes.

Would I personally do this to prove my account was not hacked? No.

For the record, theymos removed me from DefaultTrust when I gave negative trust to gweedo, who made a number of very misleading attack threads on me and my businesses. Here's the PM I received from theymos:


Did the forum's mission of free speech disappear?!

Of course you wouldn't.  It's asinine to expect the accused to prove themselves innocent.

It's asinine because you can't prove innocence, only demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Vod could just say that my private key has been "possibly" compromised along with my account, and I'd be back to square one.

You can't refute a slippery weasel claim like "possibly."

Over the past 3+ years, I've had multiple successful transactions with several people on this board, but none of those count in my favor.

Vod's baseless, evidence-free accusation carries more weight, according to our broken default trust system.   ::)

The difference is that Vod is currently in the default trust network. When I was in default trust, there was an expectation that you leave negative feedback only for untrustworthy actions, not leave negative feedback as retribution, or 'tit for tat', or as a punitive measure.

People who have done so at one time or another (me, TECSHARE, etc) quickly got removed from DefaultTrust. I fail to see how the circumstances are different in this case. Sure, Vod should be given some consideration for the tagging work he's done, but that consideration should be for good-faith mistakes, not intentional bad-faith actions.

To be fair, I'm not on the default trust list.  Nor did I make a dishonest accusation that I could not reasonably believe to be true.

The point was made (and enforced) in the TECSHARE imbroglio that default trust list members are held to a much higher standard than Joe Sixpost.

If Vod wasn't on the default trust list, I wouldn't GAS about his feedback.

Also, I've removed the feedback to which he originally objected.  At the time I left it, I wasn't aware TECSHARE had been removed from default trust.

And yes, I troll a lot.  But that's all in good fun, and I don't make irrefutable weasel accusations like "possibly hacked account" from a position of authority.

Plus, at least one other person who does not troll a lot (Quickseller) has stated that he finds Vod's behavior reprehensible and unacceptable.

Thanks for looking into this matter.  Please reconsider your opinion, minus the false equivalence and ad hom.   :)

You shouldn't have!

Although made in good faith, it was partially factually incorrect w/r/t TECSHARE's default trust status.

You are welcome to replace it...  ;)

Whoa. This changes everything. If we go by Theymos' standard, a number of people on the DefaultList and Depth Level 2 is liable to be penalized.

Magically rules and standards don't apply when it means the staff have to be responsible for obeying rules they have no problem enforcing upon others.

IMHO everybody participating in the practice of leaving negative Trust in retaliation should cease this immediately. This is not what the Trust system is for, and doing so only diminishes the value of our ratings. Also we should go back and audit our Trust ratings periodically so that only those who are legitimately untrustworthy (ie. they've been proven to be scammers or walk/talk like a scammer and want you to send first without escrow, etc) remain with negative Trust. Finally, Trust ratings should not be set in stone. If someone gets lit red because of a loan default, but then eventually pays it back, I feel that the negative rating should be removed. Gotta keep in mind that everybody has their own life and their own life issues to deal with, and sometimes shit happens. And yes, I realize I should probably do a better job of heeding my own advice.

It'd be nice to be able to modify a feedback instead of just delete it. I don't like the idea of just removing negative trust since people should know what has gone on in the past, but in your example it would be nice to just switch the negative to a neutral while leaving the reference link and an edited comment in place. You can always delete and repost it, but that's another couple steps that need to be done.

Thank you. No more "he started it" bullshit, please. Retaliating to negative feedback with a trust war is absolutely childish. PM each other and sort it out like real people! I do audit my own trust ratings every once in an odd while, and usually remove a good amount of negatives (and positives, sometimes). Trust wars make both sides look ridiculous and makes them both even more steady with their ratings. No-one gets anywhere - if anything, we take steps backward.

It was only a matter of time before something like this ended up happening, especially with the fact on this forum we conduct real deals, I hope that the moderators will have the sense not to give in to this bullshit and drastically change the rules or ban anyone for that matter just because a few morons are screaming the loudest. The people bitching about Vod even if they are correct are counting on you to overreact and start banning people left and right, then slowly, they'll get support to try and take over the forum or try and get a good portion of the community to leave.

I've seen this kind of crap before and it's always something completely pointless that starts it.

no,
I'd just like the negative mark taken off my rating. Or vod removed from default trust.
But I can see how that seems like a forum take over.

I'm glad to read his account wasn't hacked.  I've removed my trust warning.

Constantly posts BS because he is a sore dolt. Honest discussion is one thing, but sarcasm goes too far. ::)
Should still leave a neutral quoting his rating on your "wall" with a reference thread link to one of the threads TECSHARE made in Meta, so he can read the whole story...

That wasn't actually sarcasm, but I'm glad you at least got the point that it wasn't a serious statement.

Can't please everybody, and if you try you'll just end up pleasing nobody.

While I don't agree with the practice of self proclaimed "scambusters" running around telling people to respect their authoritah, or the practice in general, because IMO it is minimally effective and often counter productive (scammers return in minutes, honest users caught in it probably never return), out of all the people engaging in a proactive attempt to stop scammers you would seem to be the only one that really honors the standards they claim to keep. IMO you are quite responsible about how you leave trust in the vast majority of cases.


What I don't think staff realize is that their iron fisted punishments for the general public, and their general silence when someone in their clique breaks the rules, sews a lot of malcontent and erodes their own authority. When those in charge do not follow rule of law, no one respects rule of law any more, and what has been happening around here lately is a symptom of that.

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

OK we get it.

Default trust list members are held to rigorously high standards and promptly removed if they abuse their position.

Unless their name is Vod.

/thread

Yep, everything is a joke or a "conspiracy" when it comes to those in power here being accountable, yet when some one else breaks the rules...

http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/54545d1180148789-my-apologies-internet_serious_business.jpg


In reality this is not at all a joke. People spend YEARS of effort to build reputations in this community, and the staff and their protected minions just exploit the honest practices of these users by using their reputation as leverage to shut them up for pointing this out.

In fairness to BadBear, I understand why he'd want to deflect rather than respond to this post, in which I politely cut him a couple of new assholes: