Since you have decided to talk about me behind my back and not to my face in this thread here I will oblige you.
Not really talking behind your back when I posted it in public for you to see. Was only a matter of time before you had your input anyway so consider it a preemptive comment.
Portraying me as "paranoid" and slandering me only demonstrates your lack of a defensible stance on this issue. You are right, it is complete lunacy to think a group of individuals in power here might abuse that authority to keep themselves in complete control of a trading system which makes or breaks the trading activity of every user here. There certainly aren't a plethora of monetary motives for doing so either.
You portray yourself as paranoid and the only person who is damaging your reputation is yourself by acting like a child and making up conspiracies like every other kid does here when something happens that they don't like. THE MODS MOVED MY THREAD ABOUT THE PRICE OF BITCOIN INTO SPECULATION! THIS IS CLEAR CENSORSHIP AND THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR INVESTMENT blah blah blah. Literally saw someone use that argument before. It gets tired.
This thread is a perfect example of what I explained would happen if you cater to people complaining about unjust ratings. Supposedly the trust is unmoderated, yet the staff pick and choose who they decide to moderate the trust ratings for if the default trust is involved.
You seem to be confusing the trust list with feedback. Were you not aware that people were added and removed from the default trust list before? Of course you were. How do you think it works? Your only gripe is that you were removed from it (and that boys club you apparently despise) and now you cannot use it to your advantage and to get your own way when needed. If I left you feedback for annoying me would you not expect me to be removed? Of course you would and then you would be championing the system as it worked as it should.
Now that the trolls, scammers, and con artists see that the staff have implemented a policy of appeasement, allowing a mob mentality witch hunt on long time contributing members of this forum for the slightest of technical infractions, they will use this wedge that the staff have provided to destroy this community from the inside out with a series of baiting, harassing, receiving deserved negatives, then complaining when it happens and using the incident as a form of retribution on any trusted member of the community. In this manner these scum get the staff to dance for them and destroy the community so they can continue to scam, harass, and con people free from interference, because the staff have now handed them a way to take retribution on trusted members of this community on a silver platter.
No, but people need to know that the list isn't full of power-hungry irrational crybabies who will abuse the position of power to get people to shut up when someone say's something they don't like. This would be terrible if we just give 'old-timers' or 'trusted' users carte blanche power to ruin any newer accounts they didn't like the look of (without good evidence). Then that would be a boys club and you
were apart of it, but not anymore because of your own attitude. If you would've just looked at this from the perspective of practically anyone else you would've just calmed your ego down and rationally responded and removed the feedback, but you wanted it done on your own terms and were steadfast in that and it cost you. It's clear you're the type of person that wouldn't ever admit their mistakes or where they could've handled something better as you're going to go on about this until the end of time rather than just say,
yeah, I could've been the better man and removed the feedback and not allowed myself to be baited.
The staff have NO INTEREST in seeing restorative justice done. They have NO BUSINESS moderating trust for ANY REASON. Their ONLY INTEREST is protecting their influence over the system, and their paychecks.
This is why you're paranoid and I don't take you seriously anymore. You're just making up conspiracy to suit your agenda. How does the trust system help the staff's paychecks? I think you being on the trust list certainly benefited
your paychecks though because I think one of the main reasons you're very pissed is because no one will likely buy your overprice stuff anymore for the trusted positive feedback (and how very dare someone point out you can get the same thing you're selling elsewhere for cheaper! What was he thinking speaking out against a trusted member which is clearly out of line and not allowed! /sarcasm). And the staff also didn't moderate the trust or the trust you left, but you forced them to act to remove you from the trusted list. Your feedback is still there and always will be so what's the problem? The problem is you can't get your own way and people wont trade with you for the trust anymore. I must say I think it's funny how you don't want staff to moderate things but yet you wanted Armis' posts removed that you didn't like even though they weren't against the rules. You're a hypocrite and a classic case of only liking something until that same privilege comes back to bite them or (slightly) inconveniences them in some way. It's like the people who champion their right to free speech but yet don't like it when someone says something they don't like and then they immediately want them silenced.
OP: I would suggest to you that if you don't like getting negative ratings, you should refrain from your "scambusting" type activities and limit your ratings to individuals you have personal involvement with. There are already far too many people on this forum searching for anyone to tag so they can outwardly appear to be helping the community, but the standard of evidence for leaving negatives has become so extremely low that it is now considered ok to leave someone a negative rating just because people SUSPECT THEY MIGHT be a scammer. This is catching up innocent/ignorant users and pissing off a lot of people, and as a result they join the ranks of scammers, harassers, and trolls.
In short the community doesn't enforce any kind of reasonable standards for leaving negatives, and these "scambusting" type of activities are becoming almost trendy, and I get the feeling a lot of users do it for their own personal satisfaction rather than trying to help the community. It is also convenient that "scambusting" gives these users an opportunity to throw personal enemies into the fray and just pretend as if it was just another scammer. Instead of addressing this REAL problem with trust abuse, the staff would rather have a series of inquisitions against trusted members of this community while people who engage in this "scambusting" type of activity tagging people with little or zero evidence get a free pass when they are the true driver of malcontent over abuse of the trust system.
Damned if you do damned if you don't.
Show Posts
.
