You were lying about having his phone number. I agree it may have been more of a bluff then lie, however you did blow things way out of proportion prior to him even seeing the first thread about your claim. IMO his statement about being hot headed is accurate and is a reason to not want to do business with you as if/when something goes wrong then chances of things getting resolved are low

My major concern is that there are very few people who give negative trust to scammers and potential scammers. I would say that tomatocage and Vod are generally the only users that do this on a regular basis (I believe that John K. is also somewhat active in doing this but not as much). Looking at Vod's sent feedback, it looks like most of the users he has given negative trust to have a the 2nd number of -1 (meaning they only have one trusted scam report). The same holds true with Tomatocage's sent feedback (although there did seem to be more users with a -2 for their second score). Especially concerning is that tomatocage has given negative trust to a lot of imposters that have a 2nd trust number of -1. The new system is obviously a work in progress but it does not seem that it would even be a guarantee that either Vod or tomatocage would even be an option to use the checkboxes to add them to your trust list (a user would need to manually do this). I would say this will result in a lot of newer traders potentially only trusting people who are not very active in giving trust (positive or negative) or that no one who works hard in calling out scammers will be in their trust list.

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer. Under the current system (especially with the addition of the new feature of being able to exclude someone from your trust list), if say TF were to suddenly scam (if you were to look at this as of prior to the inputs 'hack') he could quickly and easily be removed from anyone who uses the default settings' trust network. With the proposed system, each user would need to manually remove TF (in this example) from their trust network which will probably not be updated very often. Users may or may not set a trust network and "forget it" but I don't think they will, as a general rule check places like scam accusations on a regular basis to make sure a new scammer who was previously trusted is removed from their network.

I would say that the people who are trusted by default trust should have a somewhat large trust network and be active in adding (and removing as necessary) users to their trust network. I don't think it is necessary to have people like OgNasty and SaltySpitoon on level 1 default trust because they have a very small trust network, having them there doesn't accomplish very much (although they both should certainly be trusted enough to be on level two default trust aka default trust network). I also think we shouldn't have people like CanaryInTheMine who add everyone and their brother they have ever done business with as this will result in people in default trust network that should realistically not be there.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

Well why don't we look at the effects of getting a negative trust report from someone on default trust list. Assuming you do not have preexisting trust feedback to overcome the negative trust then you will get a trade with extreme caution tag. If you are someone who engages in business that requires an extreme amount of trust, for example someone who deals in gift cards or may need to handle personal information then yes this tag would be detrimental to your business. If however you engage in business where transactions can easily be moderated by some kind of trusted escrow service then all a trade with caution tag will do is get a person's customers to want to use escrow more often. As these people make more deals the positive trust they receive will outweigh one scam report from one user (if one person gives two or more scam reports on the same person it will only count as one).

A honest person can buy a new account with fresh neutral trust in the event it is tarnished beyond repair as you describe would happen. IMO a honest person is actually more likely to do so then a scammer because a scammer is risking the purchase price of the new account for when they get caught again while an honest person with an unjust scam rating intends to continue to operate honestly moving forward.

I personally think Vod giving negative trust by jumping the gun like he originally did in the case discussed in the OP is an exception to the rule.

I would disagree that "lying" is not a valid reason to give someone negative trust. If you are lying about how much bitcoin you have or about your prior trade history then you are trying to get your trading partner to be more comfortable with you which would potentially make them more vulnerable to get scammed. In order to scam someone you obviously need to lie at least one time in order to get the other person to give you money in the assumption they will get something in return.

If by "assume he helps with the trolls" you mean he helps with the scammers, then yes a lot of people do assume that. It is too bad that you cannot see more stats about the user when you look at trust reports on someone's trust page (you can only see the username, trust rating/score, amount risked, reference link and comment). It would be helpful if you could see things like rank, number of posts and date registered. I am fairly certain that if this information was more easily available then you would see that most of Vod's sent feedback is to brand new users and users at junior member or lower. The exceptions to this rule is for people who have defaulted on loans and who have a scam accusation against them.

It is possible to recover from a negative trust rating from Vod (or anyone else on default trust list), however it will just take time. It would be inaccurate to say it is impossible to continue to do business when you have a negative rating (just look at TF - he has a horrible rating but is still able to do a small amount of business).

edit: yes it is more difficult to do business with a negative rating but it is still possible.

I agree that Vod is sometimes a little aggressive when dealing with people. I wouldn't say that he is entirely to blame as the people he is generally aggressive with tend to attempt a campaign (or in this case campaigns) against Vod. I do however consider him to be fair with his ratings most of the time (as in 99.9%+).

I think a lot of the "Vod drama" would go stop if he were to simply "walk away" once the person he is dealing with starts things like personal attacks and trolling him.

Vod should not be removed from Default trust list as he has way too many people negative rated as scammers and he puts in a lot of time and effort into preventing scams. There are few other, reputable people on here that are willing to put in this much effort into protecting the community.

Yes I believe my feedback is right. You have asked me many times, and I was threatened with negative feedback to remove it. Trust me if there was a doubt that it was right I would have removed it a long time ago and admitted my mistake.

My trust rating for you is not going to stop anyone from trading with you. At the very most it would cause someone to want to use escrow while trading with you, however even the most reputable people are willing to accept escrow

edit: I personally think the people who have left neutral feedback is incorrect

The trust system is not moderated. You are allowed to leave negative trust feedback for any reason (or no reason). If you look at my untrusted feedback, you will notice that I have been trolled for various reasons via my feedback. If you leave someone negative feedback for the sole reason that you do not trust them then others will likely not trust your feedback reports.

EDIT: to clarify my previous statement regarding not trusting you: this is not the main reason why I left my feedback, it does play a minor role but the overriding factor is how you handled the escrow transaction and your initial reaction when it was uncertain that you would be able to recover the account.

This is the rating that Vod left you
If you want to break it down, line by line:
This is true. You have called him (among other things) a liar multiple times.I haven't seen the specific lies, however they appear to be in reference to you calling Vod names trying to bash him. Overall a true statement. True. He did remove his trust report after he saw an explanation regarding the original zip code issue. By that time he had received several PMs and there were several threads opened about the issue. He left neutral feedback with his opinion on the situation. I do not remember exactly what it said, however I remember thinking it was generally accurateas mentioned above, trueVod has a negative rating now, from you
this is an opinion and by definition opinions cannot be a lie/slander

You are going to pay from your own money if they don't give you enough? I would think it would be more wise to warn them that you might not have enough money to cover all the payments and how much you have. I somewhat think that statement was made because you thought that is what I wanted to hear

yes

That is not how the trust system works. The other parties involved may not be high profile enough of users for what they claim to matter. Look at Vod's untrusted feedback. How many times has he scammed according to his untrusted feedback - probably 20......how many times has he actually scammed - probably zero.

I didn't feel insecure about your threat. I knew that any feedback left under that basis would not be taken seriously. In my eyes, anyone who leaves negative trust for "trust abuse" (which is essentially what you were claiming) should not have any of their trust reports relied upon

You have funds for two different escrow projects in a single address? Are both parties you are holding money for aware of this? Are the participants in your signature campaign aware of this? If there are no funds in the escrow address to cover signature payments (the only money left is for the FINDCoin project) then participants would keep their signature up under the impression you have enough money to pay when you really do not

You directly threatened me and saw that your threat did not work. If you can can find a different definition of extortion that does not match what you did then I would be wiling to concede on that point, but I don't think you can.

#2 - I concede the conichiwa message has nothing to do with anything however per the OP you are friends with him - even if this is not the case it is not relevant

Those are his words not mine

He is still holding funds for a signature campaign , just paid out to participants today and there is no mention of him returning funds to the owner of the site nor that he is going to resign. Per the OP of the campaign he is holding funds in 1GkgLFg9YVyvLzKbsipzJJjy5r33mpv4ki and per the blockchain there is ~.46 BTC in the address.

My responses to you were constant with how you would expect someone to react when being extorted. Your first message to me implied that something bad would happen if I did not remove my trust.
My second response was me informing you that you were very clearly trying to extort/blackmail me.
Per google You were threatening me with negative trust if I did not remove the trust rating on Redsn0w, someone who you admit is your friend (showing a clear conflict of interest)

You are allowed to act as escrow and have other commitments outside of the forum. Your presence was not the issue, the issue was that you were not there to promise that you would make good on the situation.

Since I am being extorted by michaeladair to remove my negative trust, or to change it to neutral, I will post here about my trust rating that I gave him. I am not 100% sure what his connection is to Redsn0w per the OP they are friends

For the record he did give me negative trust, however he since removed it when I informed him that what he is/was doing is extortion.

I have really never trusted Redsn0w, as he seems to be too eager to be holding other's money for them. I have seen many signature campaigns pop up where he immediately would offer his services via PM (I know he offered it because you make a post saying that he sent a PM - which is unnecessary BTW, especially when you are wearing a paid signature). He also appear to be building up trust as I have seen you trade with others on default trust list (and have few trades - with the exception of your escrow services - with people who are not on default trust list) this makes me believe the only reason for the trade was for the trust rating. I do not see any received feedback from anyone that was not either using him as escrow or is on default trust list. It appears that he was always the one risking getting scammed when dealing with users on default trust list.

Even though he argues that everything turned out okay (and went smoothly), in the end it did not. He gave both lihuajkl and Moreia a false sense of security when providing his services. My interpretation of how moreia's account was hacked was that it was not sophisticated. The theory seems to be that the email address was public when he took control of the account and did not change it to private (nor did he change the actual email address) - these are what is claimed. It has been said that only one account has ever been hacked because of weak forum security, so I would doubt it was the forum's fault it got hacked.  

Once the account was out of his control, redsn0w appeared to be primarily concerned about his reputation (by saying things like I think someone is trying to ruin my reputation) and wanted to know who was behind the hack. He was not quick to accept responsibility, he repeatedly said that the mistake was unintentional when asked if he will cover the lender's losses. The only acceptable response to that question would be some variation of "yes". It was only when BadBear gave Redsn0w negative trust (that he later removed) that Redsn0w "closed" his escrow service (although it does not appear to be closed). He is still operating as escrow for ActionCrypto.com signature campaign and recently gave Dogedigital positive trust because he escrowed a transaction with today's time stamp (although he could have previously acted as escrow and just added it now).

Additionally even though Redsn0w has several neutral trust ratings warning people not to use him as escrow he still received at least one escrow referral as recently as two days ago.

Additionally, unrelated to the escrow transaction at issue, he did on at least one occasion did something that a much older, very trusted escrow provider thought was an attempt to steal his PGP private key as evidenced in the below post found on his escrow thread.

You can gain reputation by completing a lot of deals over time. There are a very small number of people that have any interest in receiving PayPal so you are better off withdrawing to your bank account and buying with cash fiat.

It is important not to make leaving reputation (it is actually called trust) as a condition of a deal as this makes it look like you are doing trades for the sole purpose of gaining reputation.

.03

Is the buyer able to withdraw all 6.5 btc immidiatly? If not then any potential buyer is going to risk a recent payment/purchase will be reversed before coinbase allows for a withdrawal

I'm not saying that this is the case however sob stories generally are a sign of a scam.

I might check with your signature campaign operator to see if he is willing to advance you a portion of your signature payment.

I personally don't think your reputation is worth .5 (although it is a free market)

I think this is more like the likes of PBmining et el then gox.