Lots of excuses and brown nosing. All of that is fine and good. Even if all of that is accepted, what exactly was Vod's intent in making the post? What purpose could that even conceivable serve other than to harass OGNasty and bring scrutiny on him without evidence, and further publicizing OG's personal information? How would posting this information serve the forum in any way? It wouldn't, this is just more of the same abusive behavior from one of the worst serial perpetrators on the forum. |
|
|
|
Is that 4 DT members now that have been removed for putting red trust on Vod over this?
bill gator, Rmcdermott927, OgNasty, and teeGUMES
Hmm.. I wonder who is doing this excluding..
Its almost like... there is a..."Secret Sad BitcoinTalk Trust Farming Circle Jerk Mob" protecting certain members who act in lockstep... It would be a shame if some one were to introduce some individualism to your collective. |
|
|
|
I have never had $4,000,000 or 500 BTC to be stolen. This is not the purpose nor precedent of the "Risked BTC" function. This feud is really getting to the point of petty bitchslaps and mudslinging. Vod made a mistake, he owned up to it, apologized for it, and removed the offensive material. We all make mistakes, it's how we handle them that's important. Accountability, responsibility, humility, and honesty are indicators of a trustworthy person. I had respect for Vod prior, but now I know he's a man of integrity. Presenting your review with the 500 BTC risked is quite petty and childish. Here you are admitting it's a falsehood. Here you are making excuses and trying to justify your false report. That is not a display of integrity. In fact, that's likely the type of behavior that got you removed from DT1 the first time, and is likely to result with the same affect this time. Just my opinion, do with it what you will. This is not a new issue. You have not been around long enough to know that this is a repeating pattern of behavior with Vod. If you care to read about it PM me and I will be happy to link you all kinds of backstory of his abusive behavior, his pathetic excuses to cover it up, and Theymos and the community in general doing nothing to check his behavior. He has done this so many times I have lost count. He does this over and over because there are never any penalties to him and excuses are always made as the community in general just looks the other way. You have to understand the mentality of people like Vod, he will continue to escalate and do more and more extreme things because he WANTS to be restrained because he can't control himself. He has severe obsessive compulsive disorders (among other issues I'm sure) which means this is going to happen over and over and over and over and his history here has born that out. The amount of BTC that could stand to be lost in the event that Vod's DOX was correct and someone decided to act on the information he provided.
I probably would not have included that figure with the feedback, just because it's a bit speculative and depends on a chain of events that might not happen. I respect Vod and the good works he's done here, but at this point I wouldn't argue with the trust you left him. This situation has gotten way out of control, and everybody seriously needs to take a deep breath and a step back. We've got legal threats, claims of harassment, people wanting out of DT, and probably other drama going on that I can't think of as I write this. It's easy for me to say "calm down" because I'm not involved in the brouhaha, but I think that's what everyone needs to do right now. If a truce isn't possible, at least a temporary cease-fire agreement should be made before any more hasty emotional actions are taken. Make no mistake buddy, you are neck deep in it, its just is not your turn yet. |
|
|
|
Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.
I am not a fan of the idea of arming teachers. First, teachers would be required to go through at least similar levels of training as police in order to make that viable. The whole, give a vigilante good guy a gun and a 30 minute seminar on how to operate the safety and you are good to go is simply not the case. It might be some people's wet dream to be able to shoot a home invader, but for people who aren't deranged, there is a lot psychologically that goes into actually making the decision to shoot someone, even in a life or death situation. If you put someone who isn't extensively trained into a situation where they are in possession of a weapon and afraid for their life, you end up with bad results. No matter how heroic someone is, it takes a lot of training to be able to go against your body's fight or flight response to behave calmly and not make mistakes. Lets say that somehow every school has a teacher that has been in a combat position in the military or something, who is going to fund them? From my experience, teachers are constantly fighting the government for budget, because they are paying for chalk/whiteboard markers out of pocket. I can't see there being the budget for guns, ammo, training, extra wages for time spent training, hazard pay? While its possible, for the sake of staying on a single point, I'm not going to entertain the thought that the teachers themselves could snap during a bad day, overreact, and shoot an aggressive student that challenges their authority. I bet no one here has ever had an experience with an authoritarian, power tripping teacher. Just something else to think about. What about the fact that there are already a lot of police and military already trained working in schools as teachers? It might take a lot of training, so what? Is the benefit of protecting children not worth it? Who says the state pays for it? You know damned well you cant even get a concealed carry permit with a 30 minute course in most states let alone a permit to be armed on school grounds, this is total hyperbole. You know teachers already have access to firearms outside of school right? If they wanted to snap and shoot the place up nothing is stopping them currently. The most important question of all though you need to ask yourself is, which do you think is safer, an armed teacher doing their best with training on the scene the instant violence breaks out, or police five to twenty minutes away? A lot of lives can be taken in five to twenty minutes (average police response time). |
|
|
|
|
IMO RGB is already dead. There has been too much weird shit going on around her appearances and too much riding on her retaining her position for every second they can manage.
|
|
|
|
So unless I agree with you I should butt out? So in your mind a foreigner has more to say about this than a US citizen? LOL. k.
This has nothing to do with any of that. I just want some perspective from other cultures, which I realize you are deadset on avoiding at all costs. I frankly don't give a shit about your opinion as I already know what you are going to say about any hot button political issue before you say it. You will notice a few things in common with a high percentage of these school shootings. One of them is that 90%+ of them are in "gun free zones". Essentially this is just an advertisement that there will be no armed resistance on the premises. In short, the schools with armed teachers aren't the problem.
Individuals licensed to carry are allowed to carry inside gun free zones. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_AThere we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans.
An object designed specifically as a lethal weapon. We're not talking about cars or toasters. We're talking about something manufactured with the express purpose of acting as a weapon. Of course the humans pull the trigger. Nobody is debating that except for those intent on beating up a straw man. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns disappear, the intent to harm still exists. This means they will simply change the tool used, and there are plenty of available tools for mass murder at a rate equal to or surpassing firearms.
OK like what? Grenades? Dynamite? What did you have in mind that is easier to get than a gun? Do you suggest they should start controlling gasoline like firearms? What about large vehicles? What about common products that can be turned into explosives? The problem is the fact that these people have intent to harm, not the tool they use to do harm with. I can beat your skull in with a hammer or I can build a house with it. No matter which I do it does not transmute a moral standing to the hammer.
Nobody uses a gun to build a house; thats the difference. Just like nobody uses a gun to drive to work. Nobody uses explosives as a cleaning agent. You are just being facetious. As I said previously the focus on the firearms is just a convenient way for weak minded people to avoid looking at the issues that might cause these individuals to have such intent to begin with, which is of course a much more complicated issue. It is a far easier task to simply point at guns, throw your hands up, and declare the inanimate objects responsible. You play the roll of the savior when you are really the ostrich hiding from the problem looking for a convenient way to absolve yourself from any responsibility in the matter logically or otherwise. This is the harsh reality you hide from.
Ok other than "more guns," what is your solution? There's already more than 1 gun for every person in America, so don't say "more guns." Just answer this... why is it owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident? Clearly cars cause auto deaths, therefore they should be banned without any examination of the benefits of car ownership right? RIGHT!
Again, more facetious foolishness. Cars aren't manufactured to be weapons. That's the difference. You evaded my question. Answer it. Just answer this: why do you think Americans have so many gun-related deaths each year as compared to most other countries? So you are psychic now you know what I am going to say before I say it? Who the fuck do you think you are, Miss Cleo? The fact that you don't give a shit about my opinion is kind of the problem, because this subject directly effects me, but not "other cultures". SO DIVERSE! I don't think you have any idea how "gun free zones" operate. The fact that you made such a generalized blanket statement is not a good sign. Firearms have more purposes than only being used to kill. They can defend your life and the lives of your family, they can feed you, they can help you defend your other civil rights. Just because all you can see is an instrument of death is YOUR issue. As with nearly every gun control argument, yours comes from an emotion based argument of fear of an inanimate object. The fact that humans will find other ways to kill is not at all a straw man, it is a direct critique of your gun control argument. The fact is that removing guns will not remove the ability to kill, even quickly and in large numbers. It is not hard to find ways to kill people if that is really your intent. Gasoline and fires for example, large vehicles used against crowds, improvised explosive devices, we have seen all of these things used already for mass murder. The problem is what is driving them to mass murder, not the firearms they use. Firearms do not even necessarily need to be fired to be useful. The fact that they are widely owned is a criminal deterrent and a deterrent to state level actors which might want to invade for one example. Simply brandishing a weapon at some one who may be in the process of attacking you is often enough to end the conflict. Your position that guns are only for killing is myopic. Guns are tools and tools are for whatever the human wielding them intends to use them for. My solution is for one to stop drugging up all these kids. A good 90% or so of these shootings they were on some kind of MAOI or SSRI drug which are proven to create suicidal and homicidal ideation in some people. Then I would suggest people stop letting television, the internet, and the state raise their children. There are a lot of other solutions that should be addressed at the core of the issue before we start steamrolling very hard fought civil rights. I didn't evade anything, I simply took your loaded question and responded to it with an equally loaded question. That would be like saying since more people die in Australia because of kangaroo attacks than do in the US, it is proof that the USA has superior kangaroo management policies. If you own a car your chances of dying in a car accident increase. If you own a pool your chances of drowning increase. The fact that the USA has more gun crime is an artifact of gun availability just like Russia has more vodka related crime. You are only looking at the little subsection you want to use to argue your point then ignoring the totality of the situation where there are other benefits as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
I would say a negative rating is warranted in this case. This is what is called theft of services. If a guy comes to your house and patches your roof and you tell him to fuck off he cant just take your roof with him, so he will call the police and have you charged with theft of services. This is functionally the same concept. Additionally once they confirmed you as being in the program with a set terms of service/exchange they created a binding contract. Unless they explicitly have an exemption allowing the terms to be changed at any time they are liable for payment.
|
|
|
|
Theymos, I hope you realize you are opening yourself personally as well as the forum up to huge legal liability by not taking any action regarding this. If something were to happen to OGNasty, him or his family would have a very solid case, especially since Vod has exhibited this behavior multiple times in the past. Legally speaking you would have no excuses.
No more HEIL Theymos? You get drunk, post bullshit, then delete it, multiple times I have seen. How is your head now?  I have the courage to publicly stand behind my words - you don't. I agree with some things you say. If you could control your jealousy, we could talk about it.  I think you are projecting just a tad there Heinrich. I hardly ever drink, and if I do I am not home posting. None of my posts here in this thread are edited. You know you went to far and this is just a really pathetic attempt to divert attention from your own dangerous behavior which is antithetical to the entire reason for this community's existence. |
|
|
|
Who gives a fuck what people outside America think of our domestic laws, what business of theirs is it?
Me. I give a fuck, that's why I asked. If you don't give a fuck, then butt out. No one is advocating requiring teachers to arm themselves, but plenty are former police and military who would prefer to have the ability to be armed.
Half the country has laws allowing teachers to carry guns with them if they want. I don't see a problem with it being expanded to the other half. Its a better solution than arming the students. The problem is not the gun because even if the guns were removed the underlying cultural and psychological issues would remain, resulting in people evolving to use a different tool.
The problem is the gun. Its makes it incredibly easy to kill people, and they're everywhere. Its the "tool" of choice for mass murderers everywhere. Gun control is just an easy way for weak minded people to focus all of their fear an apprehension upon an inanimate object so they don't have to look too hard at the harsh realities of our society.
"Harsh realities of our society"... like the chance that you may be shot in class because your country is too chickenshit to enact any sort of meaningful gun law reformation. Just answer this: why do you think Americans have so many gun-related deaths each year as compared to most other countries? So unless I agree with you I should butt out? So in your mind a foreigner has more to say about this than a US citizen? LOL. k. You will notice a few things in common with a high percentage of these school shootings. One of them is that 90%+ of them are in "gun free zones". Essentially this is just an advertisement that there will be no armed resistance on the premises. In short, the schools with armed teachers aren't the problem. There we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns disappear, the intent to harm still exists. This means they will simply change the tool used, and there are plenty of available tools for mass murder at a rate equal to or surpassing firearms. Do you suggest they should start controlling gasoline like firearms? What about large vehicles? What about common products that can be turned into explosives? The problem is the fact that these people have intent to harm, not the tool they use to do harm with. I can beat your skull in with a hammer or I can build a house with it. No matter which I do it does not transmute a moral standing to the hammer. As I said previously the focus on the firearms is just a convenient way for weak minded people to avoid looking at the issues that might cause these individuals to have such intent to begin with, which is of course a much more complicated issue. It is a far easier task to simply point at guns, throw your hands up, and declare the inanimate objects responsible. You play the roll of the savior when you are really the ostrich hiding from the problem looking for a convenient way to absolve yourself from any responsibility in the matter logically or otherwise. This is the harsh reality you hide from. Just answer this... why is it owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident? Clearly cars cause auto deaths, therefore they should be banned without any examination of the benefits of car ownership right? RIGHT! |
|
|
|
^^^ But all the teachers need to go armed. And the schools need to have several armed parents walking the halls at all times. And some of the more responsible students should be tested for their responsibility, and trained, and armed in the schools.
I'd like to know: what does this sound like to people who live outside of America? Would you want so many guns in the school of your children at all times? How about armed students?! I don't know about you but to me that sounds like an incredibly bad idea. A huge number of things could go wrong. Anyone wanna guess why the U.S. is also #1 in gun-related suicide? Teachers shouldn't have to become combat-ready in order to do their jobs. Their job is already hard enough. Who gives a fuck what people outside America think of our domestic laws, what business of theirs is it? What if they were cops walking around the schools armed, would that be ok? That happens constantly. What is different between a cop an a well trained teacher? No one is advocating requiring teachers to arm themselves, but plenty are former police and military who would prefer to have the ability to be armed. The problem is not the gun because even if the guns were removed the underlying cultural and psychological issues would remain, resulting in people evolving to use a different tool. Gun control is just an easy way for weak minded people to focus all of their fear an apprehension upon an inanimate object so they don't have to look too hard at the harsh realities of our society. |
|
|
|
You got proven wrong using your own statistics. Just own it for once in your life. Yep, you are right, it was confusingly worded and organized. The rates per-capita are comparable. The problem is this is still not an accurate representation of actual crime rates as explained in detail here. India has a poor criminal justice system resulting in less officially reported crime. As enforcement goes up, the statistical documented "crime rate" goes up independent of the ACTUAL crime rate. In summary, you are still wrong even when you are right Nutilduhh. |
|
|
|
Theymos, I hope you realize you are opening yourself personally as well as the forum up to huge legal liability by not taking any action regarding this. If something were to happen to OGNasty, him or his family would have a very solid case, especially since Vod has exhibited this behavior multiple times in the past. Legally speaking you would have no excuses.
How? Theymos saw the post and then magically the Dox were removed - pretty sure he cleared his liability there buddy. How? It's pubilcy known that OG holds 500 btc and OG himself has posted his address on the internet. Nobody shows up to bill gates house to rob him. What about the fact that banks probably have a lot of money in them I don't see people running and jumping to rob them. How can theymos be held liable for information posted on a semi public forum? That is like saying Christopher Poole is responsiblily for everything posted on 4chan pre 2015 I am just going to answer this pretending you have enough understanding of the law to comprehend it, though I have my doubts. There are protections for commons, but as soon as you curate information, in the case by creating the precedent DOXing is not allowed, you inherently automatically create liability by picking and choosing who is allowed to continue to do so again in the future. You are either a commons or a publisher, and in this circumstance Theymos is firmly occupying the role of the publisher by enforcing the regulations on doxing on some but not all people. As a publisher he is liable for information he chooses to publish. This chain of logic is self evident. If doxing is not allowed, and this instance is excused, he is complicit in publishing the information in violation with the published and accepted terms of service of this forum (regardless of there not technically being one you click agree to or not). |
|
|
|
Theymos, I hope you realize you are opening yourself personally as well as the forum up to huge legal liability by not taking any action regarding this. If something were to happen to OGNasty, him or his family would have a very solid case, especially since Vod has exhibited this behavior multiple times in the past. Legally speaking you would have no excuses.
How? Theymos saw the post and then magically the Dox were removed - pretty sure he cleared his liability there buddy. As I explained this is not the first time he has done stuff like this. By excusing this behavior and giving him a continuing platform to continue to engage in this behavior he is setting a clear precedent of complicity with this behavior. If this was the first time it could be excused with a claim of ignorance, but now he no longer has any plausible deniability and if something does happen Theymos and the forum could be held civilly liable for failing to prevent this behavior on his platform when he knew very clearly this was occurring and allowed it to continue regardless of deletions. |
|
|
|
|
Theymos, I hope you realize you are opening yourself personally as well as the forum up to huge legal liability by not taking any action regarding this. If something were to happen to OGNasty, him or his family would have a very solid case, especially since Vod has exhibited this behavior multiple times in the past. Legally speaking you would have no excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone notice how quickly this story vanished from the media after it was discovered one of the shooters was and anti-trump trans, and then the students walked out of a vigil because people were trying to politicize it for gun control?
|
|
|
|
For a Buddhist country Thailand seem to be quite enthusiastic to slap the death penalty on various offenses. Maybe next time they'll explain it as "assisted reincarnation".
just need signs at every point of entry thats says "Welcome to Thailand. We may kill you for any reason at any time. Enjoy your stay."  |
|
|
|
I was going through my post history trying to find some information and I came across a few posts that really reminded me exactly how long these supposedly new issues with the trust system and the ambiguity of rules have been a problem around here, and how long ago I detailed exactly how this would turn out... and here we are... Yet you have it both ways, picking and choosing who does and does not get to have influence in the trust system. It has basically now come to a point where people who have dedicated enough time here to be really trusted now are SO TRUSTED that it is unacceptable for them to even defend themselves, and you expect them to sit by idly and be harassed. You sure aren't doing anything about it when it is reported, but again you "have the right to interpret the rules" now don't you. Why would you care if I am being harassed, no skin off of your back.
I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?
I never asked to be on the default trust list, not once. I harp on the subject because the rules are unwritten and selectively enforced. It is a corrupt system. I don't want to be on it, I want it to end. I left my negative rating because I was told over and over again that trust ratings are not moderated, yet Theymos and other staff members had no problem coercing me into changing my rating by personally seeing to it that I was not only removed from the default trust, but then a new feature was added, so that I could be excluded from it 2x so that others on the default trust list could not re-add me.
That does not sound like an unmoderated trust system, this is a trust dictatorship where Theymos and only Theymos chose who stays and who goes. Furthermore they can't be bothered to post rules, or even uniformly enforce their unwritten rules. Armis was the perpetrator, and Theymos was happy to have an excuse to get personally involved and make sure I was removed and then excluded for the unforgivable crime of not following his orders to change my rating.
All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently. There is no sensible way to moderate people's trust. What you are demanding is impossible to be delivered without there being other tremendous pitfalls being created by dictating to other people how to use their trust. You might think it is for the wrong reasons, clearly he thinks it was for the right reasons. Uninterested 3rd parties have no stake in making sure justice is done, only in making the drama go away as quickly as possible. Because of this strategy, all a troll has to do is kick ans scream and the mods and staff will come running in an endless self fueling cycle of troll-baiting of trusted members followed by claims of abuse. Trusted members operate IN THE OPEN. Trolls use endless disposable accounts. There is a cost to operating out in the open so that people know you can be trusted, and people who are reputable should be supported, because they are what makes this community work, not the trust system.
Being in the default trust is not an elected position. No one on it signed up to be a servant of the community even when it costs them personally. We got on that list for demonstrating we follow through on our agreements and operate in an open an honest manner. A long history of operating in a reputable way does not some how create an obligation on the part of the trusted party to serve you as if they had some kind of capacity of a public officer. Basically what you are saying is you were joking with this user on a professional thread of his, he did not find it amusing and left you a negative trust. Now that you are faced with the consequences of your actions you demand that he uphold the good name of this forum at his expense, but you yourself hold no liability in this circumstance. Complete ambiguity of unwritten rules. Apparently the staff don't like to write any rules down, because, you know some one might hold them to it. Apparently people are supposed to just GUESS what the rules are, and if they break one well there isn't usually a warning, just punishment metered out without discussion. Apparently because the staff know what the rules are, the rest of us should know, like via osmosis or something.
... the trust system is broken, staff have absurdly ambiguous standards which they selectively enforce and refuse to clarify, along with their disconcerting eagerness to toss out and slander trusted members who have worked very hard to build trust over years for infractions that they refuse to enforce uniformly for all users. In stead of confronting their broken system they would rather rip apart the community starting with the MOST TRUSTED members (except for them and their special pals of course).
I have never been a big fan of the default trust, but until I was removed I had no way to know that trust was actually moderated, default trust users has unwritten and unspoken responsibilities, or that it was so insanely simple for trolls, scammers, and extortionists to have some one removed from the default trust. In short, I had no way of knowing these abuses existed until they were perpetrated upon me personally. The simple fact is moderation of the trust list from any central authority is a disaster and these types of things will become more common. If the staff/moderators don't admit the flaw in their reasoning here they will simply end up tearing the Bitcoin talk community apart with their own hands.
Trust exclusions are just a back door way for you and the highest ranking in the trust to take quiet retribution upon contributing members who have worked to build their reputations while not taking responsibility for it because no one really sees it, unlike a trust rating where you have to explain yourself and everyone can see it. There need not be some master conspiracy plot for this to happen, just plain old nepotism which happens everywhere every day. The word conspiracy is bandied about by people who disagree with me and wish to marginalize my valid points about the inconsistent application of rules regarding the default trust system, and the trust system in general. IMHO I think that members of the Default Trust and Depth 2 Trust should be extra diligent about handing out negative ratings. I also feel that the ratings should never be set in stone and are subject to reevaluation if the subject has demonstrated that he has changed. That's why I'm always willing to take a second look at a rating that I've given out and see if it's still applicable. If not, it gets removed, simple as that.
I agree 100% with what you said here. The key in your statement is that from start to finish it is YOUR CHOICE, not some one else telling you what to do with your own ratings. I agree due diligence is important as as far as making sure there is good reason for the ratings, which is why I have left so few. I don't go around looking for people to negative. Everyone I left a rating for had some kind of interaction with me, usually trade related. When I left the negative for Armis I expected he would delete his posts and stop harassing me and I could simply delete it and we could both be restored to our former states and go our own ways. As you said if the person can demonstrate a willingness to change their behavior it can always be reconsidered. This was exactly my thinking, yet never at any point did Armis admit to any wrongdoing, let alone back down his trolling, insults, rhetoric, or slander. His unwillingness to take actions to restore us BOTH to our previous states by deleting his slanderous posts from several of my marketplace ops demonstrated to me he was unrepentant, and was under the impression that the moderators would some how "fix" his rating by making me look abusive as possible. Because of this he went as far as he possibly could to try to harm my reputation in a bid to make it look as if his rating was undeserved and unprovoked. The moderators then emboldened him in this logic by attacking me for my actions, so in his mind he had no reason to compromise because he was going to get what he wanted anyway. Now he is stuck with a permanent negative rating and I was removed from the default trust list as a result rather than him having the rating removed and me having my marketplace OPs free of his slander and trolling. This is what happens when uninterested 3rd parties get involved in moderating trust ratings. Even EBAY doesn't touch feedback ratings, and they are one of the most corrupt companies on the planet. They don't do this because they understand what a mistake it is to try to moderate feedback as a 3rd party. So rather than a logical moderated action on my part to limit the actions of trolls in my marketplace OPs, this was then cast as some kind of abuse of authority for using my trust ratings as leverage against him (even though lots of people on the default trust use it this way, including VOD). Actually it very much is the case that the trust list is one big boys club, and how I was dealt with is proof of it. Yet some people here make a part time job out of leaving negative feedback for the most flimsy of reasons and they are allowed to stay on the default trust. I EARNED my position on the default trust by trading honestly for YEARS. Additionally I was removed not because I was untrustworthy (the entire point of the trust system), but because staff DICTATED that I be removed under threat of removal of the trusting party. If he chose on his own to remove me that would be fine, but he didn't, he was directed to remove me "or else".
What you call abuse, I call a justified use. Supposedly the trust system is unmoderated, but here you are specifying the right and wrong kinds of trust based on your own interests and completely disregarding my own concerns. How was I supposed to be aware that the staff/mods operate like this if it is all done behind closed doors? I guess I should just know it because you know it, like via osmosis or something.
...the staff clearly did attempt to extort me into changing my trust by threatening removal of the party that trusted me from the trust list himself if he did not comply. He didn't remove me because I was untrustworthy, he removed me because he was DIRECTED TO by the forum staff.
People have left me negatives before, and I haven't complained about it because people have enough sense to judge feedback for themselves. You insist on treating everyone like children you have some right to dictate to because you have buttons to play with. You can pretend you know what I would do all day to cast me in whatever light suits you, but it does not make it true. This is a nice way of using circular logic and fantasy to justify your stance as opposed to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
The default trust has ZERO INTEGRITY, not because of people "abusing" it, but because it is selectively moderated ONLY WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF STAFF, MODERATORS, AND THEIR BUDDIES. You guys handed me down a maximum punishment because I DEFIED YOU not because of the reason I left the trust. STAFF use the default trust as a form of EXTORTION over honest traders by threatening to remove something they did not create, THE HONEST TRADERS DID, over a period of YEARS. Because of this the default trust is nothing more than a sham designed to give staff complete control over all high level traders here by dangling years of their work in front of them and saying "obey or else". ...I wonder what kind of governments have laws which are unwritten and must be constantly guessed about by the population.... doesn't sound like a very reliable place. Making the rules unwritten may make things A LOT easier for you, but if it makes no difference and some one will complain anyway, why is it you insist on subjecting everyone to unwritten, non uniform, unpredictable enforcement for rules they don't even know exist?
...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...
This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff). Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries. When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in.
That list is ordered by user ID, not added time. I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long. You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum. ...Involving disinterested 3rd parties in trust moderation is a failed policy.
Centralized policing of the trust system is a failed policy.
Until Theymos wises up an realizes this he is going to personally participate in shredding this community from the inside out with his own hands. Threads like this will come up more and more until they are just like the good old "centralized communist system" days, only with a nice pretend veneer of a distributed system to make it look like legitimate community consensus. People are free to point out trust abuse, and in many cases extreme abusers are themselves tagged with negatives from other respected community members. You guys CLAIM you don't want to have to deal with disputes, but you are CONSTANTLY INJECTING YOURSELVES INTO THEM.
Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.
What is the recurring theme here? Unwritten rules and ambiguous selective enforcement. We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as a standard for leaving negative ratings. Or we can just keep letting the forum eat its own face...  And we are officially here. This is the tyranny of ambiguity, selective enforcement, and avoidance of responsibility you carefully fostered here Theymos. People's real lives and freedoms are being threatened because you refuse to make hard choices in favor of utopian fantasies. Enjoy the fruits. I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
- The evidence was very thin.
- Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
- The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
- It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.
It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.
Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.
For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.
|
|
|
|
I am loving how everyone's priorities are in order here. Forget the threats to the lives and freedoms of forum members, some one left a bad trust rating! This place is a fucking joke, especially all of you spineless twats sitting atop the trust list who condone this type of behavior by doing nothing about it. Enjoy the total disintegration of the community, you earned it. For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.
Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming. This is fucking hilarious as you literally attempt to get your political opponents locked up you decry people leaving little red ratings as political de-platforming. Such virtue! I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
- The evidence was very thin.
- Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
- The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
- It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.
It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.
Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.
For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.
How many times are we going to go thru this with this little mentally ill wannabe Stazi agent? Frankly I am ashamed at you most of all Theymos. You talk about condemnation but every time he or people like him do shit like this they get a pass from you and they do it again and again continually escalating because that's what mentally ill control freaks like Vod do. By giving him a pass on this for what, the 17th time you have officially made this forum a total fucking joke. Congratulations on jumping the shark and making a complete mockery of every standard you pretend to uphold. HEIL THEYMOS! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
