So because people are publicly voicing their displeasure with Vod's abusive behavior now they are automatically puppets? Cool story bro.
Doesn't address single question. Of course not - he'll never answer a question, and he'll explicitly deny you asked him one. Techy - I don't know why everyone else sees you as a puppet, but it's another example of you claiming I am abusive when I neve have been. Go look at your sources and you will see how often you misquote people. Take something out of context enough times and it will become a fact.  No one legitimately thinks I am a puppet. They might claim it publicly in a very pathetic attempt to impugn my character but we all know no one really believes it. I think you have difficulty with the definitions of words. In order for me to "misquote" some one I would first have to quote them. Where did I misquote anyone? Still waiting for you to substantiate this claim. I am not holding my breath though because I can see you have your clown dancing shoes on as you do every time you go too far in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from your own wrongdoings. So because people are publicly voicing their displeasure with Vod's abusive behavior now they are automatically puppets? Cool story bro.
Doesn't address single question. Of course not - he'll never answer a question, and he'll explicitly deny you asked him one. I don't get it. First they said this: I am not going to participate in a moderated thread where you get to throw accusations around and then delete any replies which are inconvenient for you Then I, as they quoted this thread, expect them to say something but got nothing, another question: So because people are publicly voicing their displeasure with Vod's abusive behavior now they are automatically puppets? Maybe they will tag me for releasing OG's post where he mentioned his dox too?  You seem to be insinuating we are all the same person using the term "they" as if we are one collective entity rather than individuals that independently agree Vod is mentally ill and out of control. Is that what you are implying that I am a sock of another user or vice versa? How ironic. I see several questions, but they are all about other people. I don't have responsibility for anyone but myself, so I am not required to answer for them. Of course you don't really expect any reply, you are simply using your self moderated thread as a conduit for further character assassination where you can simply remove any logical argument you have no retort to. |
|
|
|
^ ^ ^ I like the use of Trump as you spread mistruth. I am letting your own words speak for you Vod. There are pages upon pages of you desperately struggling to avoid substantiating your accusations in a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility for your abusive behavior. |
|
|
|
I think people should leave negative trust only to users who scammed or when they strongly believe that person would scam if given the chance.
The inclusion of "strongly believe" gives enough room in my opinion. We should not leave negative trust if we don't honestly believe a person has scammed or will scam.
So I don't think the description should be changed to "You distrust this person" or similar.
Too bad honesty is in short supply around here. This is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating. Debating people's beelifs is a fools errand and subjective. Facts are mutually observable, objective, and much more difficult to manufacture than simply saying "I honestly believe XYZ." |
|
|
|
|
I am very sorry you got robbed, however if you just got robbed twice in one day just perhaps you should modify YOUR OWN behavior and do some due diligence and learn how things work around here before placing responsibility for your lax attitude on the rest of the forum. A fool and his money will soon be parted. Maybe you should stop being a fool.
|
|
|
|
made up bullshit
proclaim how much you do for this forum
setting fires yourselves and blaming it on everyone else
arsonist fire-marshal who desperately needs validation
Yep, bullshit is right. You can add "is fat" and "has bad breath" while you're on a roll. You are slipping Suchgoon. Your quality of smearing relpies is falling. Me pointing out you are full of shit is not an insult, it is an observation of your behavior as well as knowing anything anyone has ever accused me of around here is about 1000 times less severe than anything you and your Polutburo pals have been up to. You try your hardest to blow those small issues out of proportion but then when I point out far worse behavior from your comrades suddenly the standards aren't so severe. You and your mob are the cause of nearly all of the issues you claim to be resolving around here. |
|
|
|
OPVod is tagged by TESCARE, teeGUMES, Fake Bill and Rmcdermott927 with these comments: TESCARE: Mentally ill stalker who will DOX and report you to government agencies as revenge for criticizing him. Avoid. bill gator: Endangering lives through DOXing. Coaxing criminals by indicating 500 BTC is held by the resident of the address they shared. This is a dangerous flaw of judgement. Rmcdermott927: I am leaving this feedback due to the completely irresponsible actions of this user. He attempted to dox a well known user on this forum and added that the user had 500 BTC in his possession. I feel that Vod's actions had no regard towards the life and property of other human beings and for this reason he should not be trusted.
How would you feel if an innocent person or child was harmed or killed due to your reckless actions? Well, I can't say from bill's and Rmcd's feedback that DOX is true, TESCARE's feedback indicates it is true, BUT, teeGUMES left this feedback: Publicly doxxed a member of the bitcointalk community. Backtracked once he slept on it and realized it was a bad idea. Impulse doxxing over a petty dispute is childish. Why teeGUMES said "publicly doxxed a member of the bitcointalk community"? Does it mean teeGUMES knows this dox is truth or, they lied that this information is true? Nah, they wouldn't lie in trust wall, they know dox is true. Do they? part of Rmcdermott927's comment: and added that the user had 500 BTC in his possession. I find it more interesting how some people are blaming others while they close both eyes to see that person brags all around internet that they are forum treasurer.
I'll keep mentioning it too.  Well that is just funny. Did Vod said that too? Anyway, all these comments and I figured out that only person who didn't tag Vod for doxxing is - OG Nasty himself. No, he wrote this in comment: Vod is a liar & trust abuser. Administrator describes his recent behavior as "disgusting" and makes statements like, "Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust..." which is a sure sign that he's untrustworthy, and a disgusting human being. Nothing about doxing part. He is basically saying in his comment that Vod is liar & trust abuser and agrees with part of admin's post - only one part of it. Why is that? Does OG knows that everything posted by Vod has already been posted on this forum by himself, well, link to website was posted and in that website there is information about almost everything....? It is not doxxing if you have already doxxed yourself. So why "giving green light"? Why removing posts with doxing info? Why website linked in this forum with doxing info is all of sudden offline? Why was post with link edited and link is no longer there? Why another post(errr..2 posts) where OG said something about his site doesn't exist any more? Are we now pretending that we didn't know about 500 BTC? Rmcdermott927 didn't know OG was only one with keys to 500btc forums funds? Bill didn't know? OG didn't post video of his house? OG didn't post link to his website with personal information in it, under "about us or whatever"? No one knew about 500 btc?  This is nothing but a puppet show. I am not going to participate in a moderated thread where you get to throw accusations around and then delete any replies which are inconvenient for you, and I suggest no one else does either. That is why I created this thread so an actual open discussion about this topic can be had and not just a blatant naked one sided attempt at smearing people who disagree with you and your Politburo buddies. So because people are publicly voicing their displeasure with Vod's abusive behavior now they are automatically puppets? Cool story bro.
|
|
|
|
You and Techy can't produce anything other than your opinions I may have taken something out of context.  Here is page after page after page after page of you doing your mentally ill clown dance to try to cover up for your inability to substantiate your lies and abuse of the trust system. I am not sure how I can take your own words out of context. |
|
|
|
See? Two more petty insults and they continue to call me a liar without fixing their issues. 
Every lie OG has ever accused me of can be traced right back to his misquotes. [continues to watch you do your little mentally ill clown dance rather than substantiate any of your claims as is your MO] You did read and reply to my substantiated claim, didn't you? Making up your own imaginary conclusion? Then you quickly changed the subject as usual. In order for me to misquote some one, I would have to quote them now wouldn't I by definition? I don't see me quoting anyone there, but maybe if you close your eyes and imagine REAAAAL HARD this will count as substantiation of your claims of misquoting. |
|
|
|
The horrible DT1 gang is now forbidding me to be sorry and calling me names. Ima throw a tantrum and a few rocks at your fancy glass house. What rocks? You don't even have any rocks to throw at me other than made up bullshit. I just find it amusing how you and the other Politburo members of the DT proclaim how much you do for this forum while you are constantly running around setting fires yourselves and blaming it on everyone else. You are like the prototypical arsonist fire-marshal who desperately needs validation. |
|
|
|
I claimed it is public confirmation of exactly what he said, that he is taking orders and not making independent decisions.
Actually, you made up a imaginary confirmation. You always do this. Everyone can see.  Right I forgot I am the only one not allowed to make conclusions or have opinions. That is reserved for the Politburo members. Ah, so Hhampuz was an ass to you, but DT inclusion is more important? And now look! 5/30/2019 11:51:27 PM yogg no longer distrusts TECSHARE and then 5/31/2019 9:03:57 AM TECSHARE no longer distrusts yogg Doesn't take much to satisfy you, does it? You're working hard because it's election time, but in another week you'll be back to taking things out of context. I have known both Hhampuz and Yogg for a long time, I would rather have a constructive relationship with them even if we don't always agree. You know why? They aren't total psychopathic messes like you. Also I am like -5 on DT right now, in order for me to be doing this for "election time" would mean I would magically have to get 5 other people to either drop their exclusions or add me on short notice. Only a moron like you would think such a narrative would make any sense, but any branch you can grab on the way down, you will go for it. Have you ever worked with people at a real job? They are no different. A job is job - The boss says jump, you fucking jump. This thread is such a disaster.
That's definitely true, as I've learned from experience (sometimes the hard way). But as far as this thread goes, we don't really know if Hhampuz's boss told him to jump or not. And perhaps none of us are supposed to know. It's a weird situation with a company that got shut down on very short notice, and there are a number of possibilities as to what happened to the leftover funds and why Hhampuz isn't disclosing the fate of those funds. I'm curious, but that's as far as it goes on my end. I certainly would not have started a thread about this, and I think it's just an attack on a DT member by a former DT member who's been disgraced and may have motives for starting the thread other than curiosity. It's called not being a total psychotic vindictive cunt, you should try it some time.
Is this your first time trying it? Just wondering. He shows you a nice face then his handlers yank his chain and suddenly he has nothing to say to you and you are blocked with no explanation.
I happen to think the figurative nice face is genuine, and he's also not a confrontational person from what I've observed. It's not surprising he wouldn't provide an explanation for blocking someone's PMs. You know I am actually trying real hard to like you Pharmy, but you seem intent on maintaining this antagonism, for what reason I am not sure. I removed you from my exclusions before because I was impressed with the improvement in your behavior, and I actually removed you again from my exclusions a few days ago. Did I make an error in judgement there? You people just LOOOVE story time and creating this little narrative around me because I get under your skin. It is too bad that scratching that OCD itch has become more important to you than simply living your life. The fact is I am just a little too real for you people and that scares the shit out of you, no matter how vociferously you deny it. Hhampuz may very well be a nice guy, but if you are also spineless it is indistinguishable from duplicity to me in this circumstance. |
|
|
|
Funny how you goobers are always crying about the threads all the time where people are complaining, yet you can't help yourself but antagonize these same individuals for no reason other than your own personal entertainment.
Any manbaby that decides they should pursue legal action over a red mark on a forum deserves every bit of antagonism they get. You mean like Vod making reports to the IRS to attack his critics kind of legal action? I agree. Funny how you goobers are always crying about the threads all the time where people are complaining, yet you can't help yourself but antagonize these same individuals for no reason other than your own personal entertainment. This is a clear indication of how meaningless your words are and how you put your own personal entertainment above the overall good of the forum. Keep at it Suchgoon, one day you will be free from the torment of being such a pathetic powerless individual who compulsively feels the need to antagonize people simply because you can.
I'm sorry, next time someone sics their lawyers on me I'll just roll up and cry quietly. Does my snarky remark antagonize you? Don't be sorry Suchgoon, your hypocritical behavior complaining out of one side of your mouth while creating the circumstances for this kind of behavior to proliferate is a wonderful demonstration of your hypocrisy and total disregard for this community. |
|
|
|
What I am arguing for is inherently SIMPLIFYING the trust system, not complicating it. We don't need more staff intervention. I am telling you the alternatives right now as you do your best to ignore and dismiss them.
Yes, I agree with you, the trust system is not perfect and subject to improvement. And yes, we don't need more staff intervention. I hear your alternatives, but these are my questions about your alternatives, and would like to know how you would address them. When you say : implement a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative rating, and make trust ratings little more than a comment on the profile once again.
How do you see that implemented ? Who would apply this tag to scammers ? Is it the staff ? Or the tag appears when the trust score would have been -16 ? How do you verify the violation of applicable laws ? I am not trying to annoy you, but rather trying to picture how it would work.
To be honest, I think that the trust system has flaws, but I also think it is something very difficult to manage and Theymos will always try to do his best to make things better. Your questions seem perfectly reasonable and intellectually honest. I would again however refer you to the linked posts from my last statement above for review, but in brief.... Q: "How do you see that implemented ? Who would apply this tag to scammers ?" A: The same people who do it now, only they would need to provide substantiation to their claims rather than it being a subjective free for all as it is currently. Q: "How do you verify the violation of applicable laws ?" A: The same way the forum currently addresses scams and fraudulent activity (other than getting out the red paint bucket), via threads in "Scam Accusations" and "Reputation" to submit the evidence for public discussion and review. IMO the problem is Theymos is simply hesitant to put his ego aside and admit his little social experiment he has been subjecting us all to has been a total failure, and some of the people he has been most critical of are providing legitimate solutions. That is a difficult thing to admit when you are wrong some times, especially when you went out of your way to punish those that tried to warn you for the act of pointing those issues out. I am sure he feels it would degrade his authority, but of course if this place is a giant shit show he is not going to have any authority or respect from anyone anyway. I think he is underestimating the positive impact of meaningful reform, and the resulting support that will come of it and just hoping he will never have to make that hard choice and go through that process. |
|
|
|
I would really pay a fortune to see your face.
I really hope BTC price will rise for you.
You won't get a letter from my lawyer but directly one from court with a copy of the letter from my lawyer
Another week has passed and I didn't get a letter or a fortune. SCAM! Funny how you goobers are always crying about the threads all the time where people are complaining, yet you can't help yourself but antagonize these same individuals for no reason other than your own personal entertainment. This is a clear indication of how meaningless your words are and how you put your own personal entertainment above the overall good of the forum. Keep at it Suchgoon, one day you will be free from the torment of being such a pathetic powerless individual who compulsively feels the need to antagonize people simply because you can. |
|
|
|
I think the only person that really believes you anymore is TECSHARE - cause he also loves to misquote people. [continues to watch you do your little mentally ill clown dance rather than substantiate any of your claims as is your MO] |
|
|
|
That will happen the day Theymos successfully hires precogs to help with the forum moderation and undermine the bad event from happening before it starts. What you recall here requires a massive work-load ! If alone the standard of evidence of theft was enforced, who shall we give that hammer ? Theymos ? I think he's overwhelmed with stuffs. Global mods ? This would only move the heat from a bunch of seats to a single one. Who is going to research the applicable laws ? Should the forum hire lawyers ? The current system has it's flaws, it is not perfect, but what could be the alternatives ? (Alternatives shouldn't put more workload on the current staff) As we've see with Cryptios, maybe another company will see the light of day to moderate trust ? I highly doubt so but why not. What I am arguing for is inherently SIMPLIFYING the trust system, not complicating it. We don't need more staff intervention. I am telling you the alternatives right now as you do your best to ignore and dismiss them. I disagree. Whether or not a user is generally seen as "trusted" is very easy to understand for a new user. The big green or red numbers under their name, with the added "Trade with Extreme Caution" tag, couldn't really be made much clearer or much easier to understand. I don't think I've ever seen a post from someone being confused about that. Whether or not you agree with those numbers is another matter, but they are not difficult to understand.
Once a new user has been around for a while and can start to make up their own mind about who they do and do not trust, and whose ratings they do and do not value, they will want to think about setting up their own trust list. That is when the issue occurs, and it is that which should be made easier and more accessible to the average user, not more complex as in Quickseller's proposal.
You are right. It is super easy to read red and green numbers. The problem is they are often not accurate and based on personal vendettas or retaliation for criticism and not on actual fraudulent behavior. This is what new users will not understand, and this is the issue. Saying that it will be fine after they are around a while is kind of like saying "oh its ok if Timmy plays in traffic, after a while he will learn that it is not a good idea!" Your statement inherently excludes new users, the very users it was intended to protect. This is not logic but the superficial appearance of logic. I have explained this again and again and again and again and you all feign ignorance over and over pretending as if I have not already responded to your criticisms. This will require LESS staff intervention, will provide a more equitable trust system, prevent large amounts of abuse and fraud, as well as most importantly defuse conflicts BEFORE they happen, not after they are already a clusterfuck. |
|
|
|
I voted for YES.
And definitely this would rather be a good idea, make it have a drop down menu for possible descriptions and make the characters specified on a limit.With this, nobody can shit around on the trust feedbacks...
We should stop giving false feedbacks unrelated to marketing. Scams and other frauds should only be given Red Trust. But I do believe attempts and any unethical misbehaviour should also be given Red Tags.
Amazing how some one can end up back right where they started all in the same statement. Any "unethical misbehavior" can be addressed in the "Reputation" subforum and need not be included in the trust system because such claims are totally subjective and completely open to abuse as we all see. Just changing the description is like polishing a turd. It might make it look more shiny, but at the end of the day it is still just a piece of shit. |
|
|
|
Currently, the negative trust description we have is: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." These quite specific words seem to be at the root of a lot of the claims of "Trust Abuse"... Specifically, we see a lot of users who receive negative trust ask questions such as "Whom have I scammed?". This arises from the fact that a number of users appear to use negative trust to show that they consider someone untrustworthy, as opposed to considering them a scammer, per se. On the flip-side... the positive trust description is: " You trust this person or had a successful trade." (emphasis added) Would it not make sense for the descriptions of these two options to be properly mirrored as their names would suggest?  To this end, what if the negative trust description were to be modified to something like: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer or you consider this user untrustworthy."? (emphasis added for clarity) And the matching "Big Red Box"™ was changed to "Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they consider the creator of this topic untrustworthy or that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution." (again, emphasis added for clarity) Hopefully, this can stay on-topic and we can avoid the usual petty name calling, accusations and counter-accusations. If you want that, there are plenty of other threads both here and in "reputation" to beat those dead horses... I am simply looking for discussion on the description for "Negative Trust". So, "Should the Negative Trust description be modified?".... Good idea? Pointless exercise? Very good point, the trust system is self contradictory on its face. Rather than renaming it I propose we have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as the standard for leaving negative ratings. |
|
|
|
We already have a problem with most people not understanding the trust system. The majority of users do not have custom trust lists, and even of those who do, many do not really understand the difference between trust ratings and a custom trust list, or how the various depths work.
I was just about to add this into my 1st statement. This is a huge problem in the trust system we currently have. What better for new users to use as a guide for who to trade with than an almost completely opaque trust system that nearly no one understands. Brilliant. IMO Theymos just needs to nut up and take his little tumor of a social experiment he has been running on all of us out behind the barn and shoot it. Get rid of trust lists completely, implement a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative rating, and make trust ratings little more than a comment on the profile once again. Simplify the system and increase accountability for its use and abuse. Or we can just let the forum continue to eat its own face as I warned would happen years ago when these failed "features" were implemented. |
|
|
|
I appreciate all the kind words guys! You always help me in seeing things from new perspectives while all the same bettering myself both as a user here at bitcointalk but also as a human.
Sure sounds good when you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" doesn't it? That's who we need in control of the trust system here, people not even mature enough to listen to criticism of themselves. I'm glad to see you no longer distrust Hhampuz, even after this heated exchange. I wondered what had caused your sudden change of heart, then I saw he stopped distrusting you just 24 hours earlier. It doesn't take much, does it? Have you ever worked with people at a real job? They are no different. A job is job - The boss says jump, you fucking jump. This thread is such a disaster.  Thanks for the public confirmation Hhampuz is a paid tool who doesn't make his own choices. So owlcatz makes a comment, and you go and claim it's a public confirmation of whatever you want? Then you go on to use that imaginary confirmation in the basis of other attacks. Shine a light on your claims I am dishonest and it all comes down to you making shit up, am I right? Or maybe you blindly trust OG when he misquotes? I only excluded Hhampuz because he went from including me to excluding me, as well as blocking my messages within a day, all with no explanation after I had literally just offered him assistance in a friendly message which he replied to in kind. For whatever reason he removed me from exclusion so, yeah I removed him from exclusion myself. It's called not being a total psychotic vindictive cunt, you should try it some time. Funny, you seem to be more concerned with the situation of me posting his PM to defend myself than he is. Getting thirsty for more abuse of the trust system to settle your personal vendettas already after only a week are you? Is your taking a break and hoping everyone would forget your behavior AGAIN not working out as you had hoped? Hhampuz, it is a waste of time to argue with some who won't be transparent but demands it from others. I would suggest locking this thread and pointing it to a new self moderated one. Hhampuz is far from transparent. He shows you a nice face then his handlers yank his chain and suddenly he has nothing to say to you and you are blocked with no explanation. Have you ever worked with people at a real job? They are no different. A job is job - The boss says jump, you fucking jump. This thread is such a disaster. I claimed it is public confirmation of exactly what he said, that he is taking orders and not making independent decisions. As far as OG, I don't have to blindly trust him, I know from personal experience what an mentally ill obsessive compulsive psychotic stalker you are, and how it is impossible for you to control yourself in the face of criticism. Your ego is so weak the simple fact that some one openly criticizes you sends you into an uncontrollable rage due to the fact some one dares treat you like the mentally ill turd you are, and not the God you imagine yourself to be. Also BTW Vod, if you are going to take a page from Saul Alinsky and accuse your opponents of all the crimes you yourself are guilty of, at least change it up every once and a while so it isn't so transparent. |
|
|
|
Also, I should mention, I am not shocked some Sr. Members have jumped at me over some constructive feedback I have given. I have been a member since early 2017, and am a bit of a crypto evangelist with people around me. I have not spammed or scammed. My feedback should thus be seen to have some value, and users should not be discouraging other members from giving such feedback.
It is the politics of this forum that I oppose - and the way people become invested in the politics - this gateway that, honestly, should not exist. This is not what cryptocurrencies are about. What I'd like is a fairer system, but I admit I don't know how it can be done. However, pointing out some shortcomings should not be taboo.
Get used to it comrade, this is the new East German Democratic Republik of Bitcoin Stalk. You either support the party or face the consequences. Dissenting opinions will not be tolerated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
