update

I see. So we shouldn't have rules because there might be loopholes. Solid logic. They have a word for places without rule of law, its called a dictatorship. I see how you excuse yourself from the situation by claiming no involvement in him being on the trust list, but that still doesn't absolve you of your statements that any abuse of the default trust will be dealt with, because clearly it isn't the case. As far as guidelines, no one put any guidelines for how to deal with the default trust either. How exactly are people expected to follow rules that are unwritten? Do you really expect everyone on the default trust list to review all of the dispute cases that come forward? I am not talking about anything like eBay or Paypal, I am talking about a clear set of official rules everyone can understand so people don't just have to GUESS what is and is not ok.  You aren't seeking a restorative form of justice but rather a punitive one which harms everyone involved instead of allowing people to fix their own problems.

It is convenient that you can just absolve yourself of involvement, when in reality you could exclude Vod from your trust list, along with one other person on the default trust list, and he would no longer have the ability to abuse his position on the default trust. You have a brain and the ability to review the situation, as well as act upon it, but you refuse to. This is what I am talking about when I describe preferential treatment. There is always an excuse when it is inconvenient. If it makes you look good then it is justice. If it is inconvenient, ignore its existence. This is fundamentally what is wrong with the system in place here currently. It becomes a popularity contest, not rule of law.

You are right, why should I be upset when my reports continually go ignored and some one is harassing me in the only area I am allowed to post items for sale. Rules are only to be used as cudgels to enforce upon others, not to protect them, that's no fun. I offered a compromise that would make us both whole again, but he did nothing but escalate the entire time.

If it was true that people who leave shoddy feedback would be removed, why is it that VOD is still there? Some how him negative rating me for "lying" about him is acceptable, but me leaving a negative rating for some one harassing me in my own OP's is stifling free speech? He has made a long term pattern of exhibiting this behavior, but there is always an excuse as to why it is ok... for him.

You mistake me being agitated with losing my temper and being vindictive. Perhaps if there were official rules posted for the trust system some where on the forum none of this would have happened to begin with, but if the rules were posted they might apply to EVERYONE, and we can't have that.

Of course you and Badbear only reserve such measures for people like me with one single overblown accusation against me, but for people like Vod and Quickseller suddenly again you repeat the mantra of how you do not moderate trust.

For the 10,000th time, BREAKING A T.O.S. AGREEMENT IS NOT A CRIMINAL ACT. IT IS 100% WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL CONTRACT LAW. If your standard is that no TOS agreements should be violated, almost NO VIRTUAL GOODS would be allowed to be sold on the forum. Furthermore if it was illegal, it would be against forum rules, and the mods and admins would remove it themselves if reported! Therefore the only conclusion left is VOD has trouble controlling his impulses to order people around and start drama.

What people should do and what people actually do in reality are two very different things. People almost always superficially review a person and will move on to the next trader at the slightest question of impropriety. The Bitcoin community is a hyperparanoid environment because of the constant barrage of scammers.

I would appreciate it if you did not try to dictate to me what my own motivations are, I can do that for myself thanks. The default trust is a broken system, and it causes more harm than good. The same goes for Vod.

Scambusting itself is becoming a form of trust farming (not just by Quickseller). Steamroll over a bunch of people, pretend you stopped a bunch of scammers, collect positive ratings, and abuse trusted position even more. This is one of the main reasons I have argued so heavily against "scambusting" in general. People who are wronged will bring it to light, we don't need internet precrime police running around everywhere interfering with what would otherwise be voluntary transactions in most cases.

Unless of course your name is Vod, then you are free to make up things about people and leave negative ratings for whatever you feel like. I never made an exchange with him or been suspected of shady behavior either and he claims I lied about him  (since when is that an acceptable use of default trust?). He is still very much on the default trust list still abusing away at it playing rent a cop.

I find it amazing how much shit you guys are giving Quickseller when Vod does this kind of thing several times a month.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

I agree. The default trust list just creates a false sense of security and a feeling that they don't need to research their trading partner because there are red and green numbers. In reality all it does is create a protected class within this illusion of scam prevention.

How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999147.0;all

I found some "nazi" Jews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IapWP8hq9Mc

If this were true, why would Theymos add a feature such as exclusions allowing him and the highest ranking members in trust ratings to negate anyone adding some one to the default trust list whom he unilaterally chooses? They like to say they don't moderate trust and and don't get involved, but they clearly chose to over and over to get involved again in a very selectively applied way. Then they claim they are acting in an individuals capacity and not as a staff or vice-versa to absolve themselves of interference they claim doesn't happen.

The trust system was supposedly meant to rate ones trading behavior to demonstrate who trades honestly. Over time it degraded into a weird political/popularity contest, then into mob rule. Does a trust system designed to bring honest traders to the top of the trust rankings need to have yet another way to give those at the top even more ability to exclude people to settle petty vendettas? They claim there is not enough people participating, but they make the standards so inclusive and nepotistical that only a select few are able to have any effect on the system. I have been trading here for over 3 years and have been trusted with thousands of dollars and have always fulfill my agreements with hundreds of traders, many of which I personally introduced to this forum. Yet according to Theymo's standards his system that supposedly ranks honest traders, I should not have a say. Theymos doesn't want a decentralized system, he wants to sit on top of the list and rule by decree.

So you are telling me I am not allowed to form an opinion and state it without the approval of everyone on the default trust list? Just because you do not agree with my opinion does not make it a lie or "disinformation". Everyone loves free speech until some one says something that offends them personally then suddenly it needs limits. Leaving people negative trust from the default trust list for what some one said has NEVER been an acceptable use of the trust system.




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.

So you get to decide if my statements are false or not? Tell me, on what evidence do you base this conclusion on? Oh that's right, its just your opinion. I guess you get to have an opinion, but my opinions have to be checked with you and Vod before I can have them.

Re: 3
If you are going to criticize me for something, at least bother to check the chain of events that started this instead of just demonstrating your ignorance of the situation as well as your bias.

This is the order of events you did not bother to actually look at, and instead blindly swallowing Vods bullshit narrative.

1. I was removed from the default trust list. There are no rules about using the trust list anywhere in the forum. I am not sure how I am supposed to know that the trust list is a broken system if there are no rules and the first time I break one I am removed. Additionally since there are no rules posted anywhere, all I have to go by is the example of other users on the default trust, such as Vod, and by that metric my rating seemed to be acceptable.

2. I made this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg9495269#msg9495269
 In it I explain how the application of the rules are unwritten, unspoken, and not uniformly enforced. I used Vod's abusive ratings as an example of some one who repeatedly does the things I was accused of one time, but is not removed from the default trust. This is not a war on Vod, this is me being critical of his behavior as well as the inaction by staff while they played a close role in making sure I was removed from the trust list, even going so far as to create a new feature to make sure I was not again added to the default trust list by other level one users.

3. Vod did not like the fact that I was bringing attention to his abusive behavior and decided he would prove that he does not abuse his position on the default trust by leaving me a negative rating. I made a thread about it here, the first time I called for his removal from the default trust. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0
When confronted and asked to quote the supposed lie I made about him he waivers and delays for several pages, then decides on using a statement that I made in the thread about his negative rating that was made AFTER he left it.

4. After public pressure he changed the rating to a neutral, but after I dared to challenge his unilateral royal decree that MSDN keysellers are now not allowed to trade on the forum, he decided he would again use his position on the default trust in an attempt to again try to silence me from being critical of his actions. Here in a thread about the keysellers some one comments on his neutral rating for me and decides to make a show of the fact that he turned it into a negative. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378
I don't know how he could make it any more clear he did this because I was critical of his actions, not for "lying" about him.




Just because you do not agree with my statements does not make me a liar. It is a pretty basic concept. You don't have to agree with me, but you don't just get to declare me a liar because you don't like or agree with what I said. Additionally this forum is supposedly in support of free speech, but I guess it only counts as long as you don't get Vods panties in a twist.

"People who built up reputations" is a lot of people on this forum, and most of them will not speak up for fear of having their reputations assaulted by asshats like Vod who freak out and abuse their privileged positions to punish people for saying things they don't like.  Actually "users who done once" as you put it was referring to Beastlymac, who was removed from the default trust for negative marking some one who was trying to extort him for posting lies about him.  Its not ok for Beastlymac in a clearly justified situation, but it is ok for Vod. Vods position on the default trust list, that is by definition special status. He has the ability to damage peoples reputations by simply leaving one negative trust rating being on the default trust list. I keep hearing about these extra standards that people on the default trust list should have, yet people like Vod who have demonstrated they are repeatedly willing to abuse the position are allowed to stay on it.



Tell me, what proof do you have that what I said is a lie? Oh yeah, that's right, its YOUR OPINION. The fact that your opinion is in opposition to mine does not make me a liar, it just makes you dishonest for trying to apply that label because you don't like what I have to say. Furthermore, please tell me exactly how one person stating their opinion is going to harm the staff or the forum. I will wait.

Killyou please update here if the issue is resolved.

You are way off topic. Move your reply here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg11182411

Look how cute you are crafting so many excuses for your pal.


Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "because you continued"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

What about Vods behavior makes you think he gives enough of a shit to have a discussion with some one before or after negative rating them? He stated very clearly he was blocked.

2) Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. SaltySpitoon is not the god of Bitcointalk. He does not speak for everyone even if he had the ability to know everything. His opinion does not negate my opinion and magically some how make it a lie. Furthermore Saltyspitoon is just a mod, he has very little power to do anything on the forum, so he can hardly speak for higher level staff either. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

2b) No. "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

3) It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

No one said anything about good deeds. I used the words symbiotic exchange. Either way you define it, it is not that complicated.  If you treat some one shitty enough times, they will themselves start going around and being shitty too in order to pass that negativity on to some one else. If you treat people well, they start treating other people well too because they have positivity to share. If it makes some ones life better or easier some how in addition to your own, it is a success, end of story. The acting party need not be aware of every ripple of causation that follows to contribute to the overall positive state of humanity, thus relieving some negative pressure that some other asshole created by being selfish as a result causing it to balance out.

Think of it like an aquifer. Some people just drink from it and use the water lowering the levels. If there weren't people processing the water to add water back into that aquifer, then everyone would go thirsty. Everyone who uses the water can try to conserve and use less, and some people can continue to just take more, but there is a limit to how much people can take before everything just breaks down, and eventually the takers will have nothing left to take along with the givers. Human happiness is a finite thing that is quantifiable and can be taken and given to people just like any other commodity. If you don't believe this to be true, just take a look at the entire marketing industry. It is designed to create malcontent in order to influence you to buy a product in order to relieve that negative tension.

As far as your last two sentences, I don't know what it is that I said that some how communicates to you that I think the world is fine the way it is. I made no such conclusions or implications either way regarding that, this statement is completely of your creation. Your last statement is just complete nonsense and is untrue. I am talking about doing things that are positive for yourself as well as others, I didn't say anyone had to be completely innocent or saintly. Good actions don't erase bad actions or vice-versa. A mass murderer can wake up one day and realize the error of their ways and start doing things that are positive for everyone, it doesn't make them a saint, it just makes them aware of how their actions effect others and willing to do something about it.

I was excited about this project, until I saw it was run by Skynet.