Why are they different? Because their job is to police the forum, and after some time that becomes frustrating and builds callousness and unwillingness to listen to people any longer because you simply don't have the time or energy to listen to anyone's complaints any longer. You take your shitty merciless forum policing attitude and apply it to a trust system as a third party with no direct involvement in the situation, and cause MORE HARM, instead of allowing the two parties to achieve a mutually beneficial solution to the issue.
You sure seem to be making grand assumptions about how fatigued the staff are. I suspect you're projecting your frustration and fatigue with the community rather than the staff's viewpoint. It doesn't cause more harm, you just felt the force of it after doing something you thought you were entitled to. A completely neglected system would let anyone with minor or petty gripes get what they want, as in the attempt in your case. This is not an assumption, you have stated with your own words you do not have time to review these cases carefully. Furthermore I don't have to assume anything, in your case all I have to do is witness your hostile stance toward anyone who questions your decisions. It does in fact cause more harm than good, because a scammer is back in minutes, how long does it take an honest member trying to obey the rules to recover their reputation? It may never happen in a lot of people's cases. They just lose all of their time and effort invested. You guys are using hand grenades to swat flys and then claiming the pile of bodies left over from bystanders is not a big deal. The difference is most regular members don't have an obsessive compulsive need to get involved in disputes as a third party like staff and or staff protected users like VOD. If some one is out of line eventually the user base will push back WITHOUT mommy and daddy babysitting. But sometimes mummy and daddy need to get involved when children get out of hand and can't play nice. Isn't the entire concept of Bitcoin supposed to be focused around person to person trading? Furthermore your response just demonstrates your lack of respect for users here. Just because YOU think it is a good reason to intervene does not make anyone involved children, but I am sure it suits your authority complex well. In my case, if the staff hadn't got involved, Armis would have never been put under the impression that staff would "fix" the rating I left for him and he would have removed his harassing posts, and I would have removed my negative rating, restoring US BOTH to out previous states. Instead staff forced their involvement now I am removed from the default trust and Armis still is marked with negative trust. Wow you guys sure made that issue better. That's what you hoped. And Amis might be still marked with negative but it's untrusted and people will now disregard it once they see who it's from. Seriously I'm done with your whole fiasco. What do you actually attempt to get out of this? All you're doing is making yourself look bad and making people respect you less and less. You have said you are done commenting on my posts about 3 times now, do you really mean it? I never wanted to leave a negative on Armis's reputation permanently, but you made sure that all paths to any form of restorative justice between us were replaced with with authoritarian centralized punishment. So I guess we both lose because of your obsessive need for control and punishment rather than focusing on how both parties could find resolution (which I offered to him publicly). |
|
|
|
I'd just make it simpler, and remove all scores and numbers and trust lists, and just have it as a feedback system. Before you deal with someone, you check what people have to say, be it that they are a jerk, or that they aren't trustworthy with money. A huge problem is that people don't read what people were left feedback for. If I have a -1 for scamming someone and a -1 for being an unpleasant businessperson those two things shouldn't hold equal weight. With the numeric system, people see that -1 that someone recieved for a personality issue, and internalize that they are a scammer. If its just a list of feedback with trusted/untrusted gone, people will have to read through the list, see what feedback they find important to their situation, and judge based on the person leaving the feedback.
Or perhaps have a default trust system until members have X activity so newbies can be somewhat protected, but people will be forced to get off of the default trust system by the time they know how things work around here. I am pretty indifferent about the trust system as it is, because I use it entirely differently than most people. But, it has been pretty effective for its original intentions thusfar in helping out new members and allow early warning of scammy behavior for those that might not see the signs themselves. The majority of issues that have arose are with lists, how large/small they should be, how often they should be updated, who should do the updating, etc. Get rid of all trusted lists, and its not a problem.
This |
|
|
|
Once again VOD has gone too far and has now left me negative trust because he did not like the fact I criticized his abuse of the trust system. In order to prove he does not abuse the trust system he has abused the trust system to leave me a negative rating: Vod 16: -0 / +9(9) 2015-01-06 0.00000000 "Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis. Not trustworthy." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15728My goal was not to have you removed from the default trust list until now. Previously I was simply trying to get you to check your behavior, but now I can see you have no interest in that only digging your trust abuse hole even deeper by accusing me of lying about you and attacking my reputation with a false trust rating. This is clearly an abuse of the trust system in order to silence my criticism of his activities in his abuse of the trust system. I have told no lies about VOD, and I challenge any one to quote anything untrue I stated about VOD. Regardless, he accuses me of things that are not scam related in a very clear attempt to put a chill effect on his criticism, posted in the appropriate areas where such criticism belongs. I challenge the staff to now remove him from the default trust, because he clearly has no intent of restraining himself if this is how he responds to just criticism. He seems to believe he has some kind of special authority from staff that protects him when he abuses the trust system. Staff, here is your chance to back your denials of preferential treatment for Vod with actions. |
|
|
|
Yes, unlike your insults and attacks quoted here:
Actually, it's exactly as my insults and attacks quoted. The difference is, I'm not complaining.  He is complaining while doing the exact same thing. That makes him a hypocrite. So even though you were the one to originally wrong him carelessly, HE is the hypocrite? Makes sense. Good luck with your silver mental gymnastics medal. |
|
|
|
Avoiding the answers by being a dick and using attacks.
Such a point is probably lost on intellect like yours, but when you call me a "dick" you are ALSO using an attack. Complaining about something I do when you do the same thing yourself makes you a hypocrite. Yes, unlike your insults and attacks quoted here: Dude, based on your comments here and to me in PM (don't care about me, my ass!), don't ever get a job in customer service. You don't have the skill set.
I've been dealing with family all day and have not been online. You're a dipshit.
I'll be going back to leaving negative on his account.
He simply laughed at me over pm and blocked me. That's the third lie I've caught you in. I never laughed at you - I simply blocked you from sending more spam PMs. Stop lying to make me look bad. Since you're now on default trust and you left me negative affecting my rating, and since you continue to be dishonest, I have left you negative feedback as well. I consider this issue resolved. You may now cry yourself to sleep, fool.  I've offered to prove I was not lieing to this fool, and he simply yells at me a blocks me. I didn't yell at you either. You posted these two things about me which were obviously lies. You need to grow up, child. Yes, so I'm hot headed.
I said you laughed and yellled.
I can in fact see how that's worth ruining my rep.
It's lovely how you continue to avoid any attempts at proving I lied about my postal code, or that I'm not Canadian.
And refuse to accept proof I provide
If any trusted members wish to chat so I can prove I'm Canadian, and my postal code, does in fact contain 3:zeros. Please pm me.
Vox is clearly a child with a god complex.
Go cry yourself to sleep, little boy. No one cares - you brought it on yourself. |
|
|
|
You are slandering me by calling me a liar when very clearly your quotes demonstrate you were in fact antagonizing and insulting this user.
I've never slandered anyone. How would quotes prove it anyway?  It is sure a lot better than your usual tactic of lobbing empty accusations at people. At least that is evidence of something, not just an accusation. |
|
|
|
You don't even have a single complaint let alone a single incident. You have dozens of complaints
Yep - I'm with hilarious on this one. You are a nut job.  Is this another one of those insults you didn't make? |
|
|
|
It is really amazing to me that with all the ACTUAL ABUSE of the trust system by people like VOD and other "scambusters" going completely ignored, you feel as if my one use of trust that you didn't approve of personally was "blackmail" and and unforgivable attempt to "extort" another user to "shut up". You are taking quite a few liberties with your narrative, in addition to claiming the psychic abilities to know what happens in my mind. Other instances of abuse doesn't validate yours or invalidate the decision against you. I think vod has over-stepped the mark a few times recently but he will usually do something to remedy it. You didn't. Usually? Why is it that "usually" is ok for VOD with stacks of accusations against him while a single accusation against me was grounds for my removal? He CONTINUES to make these "mistakes" and often goes even further by insulting and antagonizing users who make claims against him instead of fixing the situation like he should. Furthermore I have seen MANY complaints against VOD go COMPLETELY IGNORED by staff. You aren't explaining anything, just making up some bullshit narrative to justify your overreaction, vitriol, and attempt to invalidate any of my valid complaints. It is very clear that you are unable to control your emotional state regarding this issue and this has become a personal mission for you. The only person here with a bullshit narrative and who is 'unable to control their emotional state' is you and I don't have a personal mission (unlike you) but I'm just responding to your bullshit. You just can't look at this from any other angle and attempt to pass the blame on to others who may or may not be abusing the system. Regardless of that, you still abused it. Is it unforgivable? No, but you could've sorted this out all by yourself but you acted stubbornly and immaturely and are continuing to do do. So I see, me responding is a bullshit narrative, but when you respond it is just responding. You were more than willing to fling accusations against me from the very first moment I objected to this logic. Additionally I see your replies to me filled with insults, exaggerations, slander, and flat out lies against me. I have not treated you in the same manner regardless of how offensive you find me questioning your authority. Furthermore, the entire reason I was in the situation I was in was because of users like VOD being allowed to use the system in the way he does, with no explicit rules posted anywhere. Some how I am just supposed to know this is ok for him, but not ok for anyone else. This isn't passing the blame, this is pointing out the ambiguity and double standards of policy enforcement around here. I admitted my mistake in placing a value to the trust and CORRECTED IT IMMEDIATELY upon request. No one ASKED me to agree to be on the default trust. I never agreed to represent the community, I was just placed there one day without explanation for conducting myself exceptionally over 3 years. Yet some how I am supposed to know these unwritten rules only apply to people like me and do not apply to people like VOD. I could have sorted this all out, but instead the staff got involved and left myself and Armis in a worse state that than when we started. Nothing was restored for either of us. Instead of restorative justice being worked out between Armis and myself, the staff got involved and metered out punishment leaving us both in a worse position, end of story. Furthermore you act as if there is no gap between "a noob with three posts" and the trust list level, this is another glaring misrepresentation. You can add a 3-post newb to your trust list if you want, but I don't think that's the sort of behaviour people on the default trust list should have, especially when it is quite clear that person has only been trusted to boost their own feedback. Stop trying to distract from the point at hand. Here you go again with your application of extremist ideas to me that I do not support. I do not want to add 3 post newbs to my trust list, but you act as if there is nothing between new ignorant misguided users and the untouchable infallible royalty making decisions such as yourself. If anyone is misrepresenting things it is you. If you bothered to actually consider what I said in my posts between your hyperventilating[...]
jaded angry children No, I've considered it. You're the only hyperventilating jaded, angry child here. One that by the looks of it is never going to stop throwing a temper tantrum all over the place until he gets his own way. What am I jaded from? I don't have to police the forum all day, you do. Any time some one questions your decisions it is always the same accusations of "conspiracy", "paranoia", and claims of ulterior motives. No one is allowed to react to posts except for you, and if anyone else does well it simply is not legitimate. Me vociferously arguing my points is not equivalent to a temper tantrum, but please make some more accusations against me while you insult, slander, and blow everything I say out of proportion, maybe someone will be convinced you do not have trouble controlling yourself, and you aren't jaded from all the bullshit that you are forced to deal with on this forum on a daily basis. you would see I am asking for people on the "default list" to have LESS POWER to completely destroy people, and along with that there should be a corresponding removal of any officially staff run trust moderation. I don't see how this system would work. The current one works fine as long as we have rational people who can handle their position responsibly and when they can't they get rightfully removed, but of course people will either love or hate certain staff or people being in control when things do or don't go their way. Armis is probably quite thankful they stepped in for this instance. Clearly that is true, because VOD is clearly rational, can handle his position responsibly, and is very clearly checked by the staff when he is out of line /sarc What does Armis have to be thankful for? Al you did was remove me from the default trust, he still has a negative rating and red on his name. YOU DIDN'T FIX ANYTHING, you just caused more damage. If however you didn't give him the impression you were going to "fix" the feedback for him he wouldn't have tried to hard to slander me to try to get his trust "fixed", and he would have negotiated with me and removed his slander, and I would have removed his negative rating, a solution which I PUBLICLY OFFERED HIM. Why should he even have a discussion with me if he was under the belief you would fix it for him, and he would get his way anyway? This lessens a single individuals ability to burn a user singlehandedly, and also removes the ability for random trolls to create infighting and extort trusted users simply trying to protect their HARD EARNED trust by making endless false complaints. This is your biggest mistake. You think you earned the right to abuse your position and it's irrelevant because your trust and trade history has been left untouched only your ability to leave such trusted feedbacks has been revoked, but that was your own wrong doing. What you define as abuse I define as a justified use of trust. I never once tried to lie about why I left the trust, and in fact I took several steps to try to deescalate the situation while Armis only escalated from his very first contact with me. He had no desire to do anything but harass me, and the staff helped him rather than asking him to account for his behavior. Of course if he hurts my ability to sell that does not affect you, so why should you care or even respond to my reports against him? It is much easier to just burn down my trust as an example to other to obey the staff dictates or else. Meanwhile people like VOD build whole pages full of complaints against him that go ignored. Sounds like uniform enforcement of policy to me. You claim you don't want the default trust used as a blackmailing tool, but you only want to stop the abuse from ONE DIRECTION, and it just to happens to be a form of abuse you will never personally suffer from because you have all kinds of fun moderator buttons at your fingertips. The REST OF US have to use the tools we have available. If the default trust can be used by more powerful members to negate a users trust ratings, and if trust is moderated IN ANY WAY, then the default trust can ACTUALLY be used to extort users into compliance by ANYONE making a complaint about a rating. Of course since you are staff that will never be a issue for you because you are in the boys club, so why should anyone else be protected from this form of extortion? What fun buttons are those? The ability to move threads? Whoop-de-doo. Moderators can't do much on this forum apart from that and if we abused our power in even the slightest infraction I'm sure we'd have to account for it. And besides, I have - or you had - the same power as me as does anyone who is on defaultrust and if I abused it in the same fashion as you did I would likely be removed from the list and maybe even as a moderator, that is of course unless I would be willing to see the error of my ways and compromise, which you didn't do. The difference between me and you is I can likely handle the situation maturely without having to resort to feedback abuse in an attempt to get somecone to do what I want (which is what you did by your own admission). Someone wants to troll or harass or state I'm selling something overpriced? Go right ahead. I can rise above it or deal with it without resorting to the feedback system. Maybe we should just agree to disagree because this isn't going to ever go anywhere. You think you're right and hard done by and I think you over-reacted and used the system as blackmail and clearly neither of us are going to change our opinion on the subject but I'm getting bored of rephrasing the same old argument to your rehashed points especially over such a petty matter and I'm sure you feel the same. As a moderator you have the ear of people with the ability to destroy trust ratings and ban people. Of course they will take your word EVERY TIME over any one else making a complaint. Staff are chosen to police the forum, but when that same police like attitude is applied to the trust system is becomes EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE. It is almost an OCD like need to demand perfection in the trust system while you yourself admit you have no time to properly examine these cases, yet you have no problems making conclusions about them with a superficial review. This should be left up to the user base, not staff who can easily rally mobs with little or no effort simply by making a hasty conclusion. All this behavior does is burns precious honest users while scammers, trolls, and extortionists laugh at how easy you have made it for them to rip out the core of the community over unforgivable technical infractions. |
|
|
|
Of course you will just continue to slander , insult, and antagonize instead.
You will continue to lie about, insult and antagonize me as always. I've never slandered anyone. You are slandering me by calling me a liar when very clearly your quotes demonstrate you were in fact antagonizing and insulting this user. I am still waiting for you to quote one of my supposed lies about you. |
|
|
|
No, clearly it is because no action is ever taken against you that it is clear they support you, while others are thrown under a bus after a single incident. Keep practicing those mental gymnastics, maybe some day you will get the medal.
One day I may get my single incident and get removed like you were. But so far I'm smart enough to do the right thing.  Lol single incident. Thats funny. You don't even have a single complaint let alone a single incident. You have dozens of complaints, and lots of feedback that clearly doesn't follow the guidelines for leaving negative trust. I however have left about 6 total negative feed backs since the trust system existed. It would take a while to count how many you have left. Your situation and my situation are in no way the same, other than the fact that I was punished for something you do quite regularly. Even after stacks of incidents, many of which you refuse to cooperate in, you are not punished or even publicly redressed by the staff. |
|
|
|
You skipped the part where you antagonized an insulted him first.
You lie all the time. I can't call you on every one... So this isn't you insulting and antagonizing him after YOU made a mistake? Nope, it was my insulting and antagonizing you for constantly lying about me. Follow the quote bubble... I see so my lie is that you were "antagonizing and insulting him" when you were not, very clearly demonstrated by your quoted posts above. Please, if this is not the lie you are referring to, quote my lies about you, I would be glad to defend anything I stated. Of course you will just continue to slander , insult, and antagonize instead. |
|
|
|
So because I didn't openly criticize you that means I supported you?
So because the moderators here don't openly criticize me, you think that means they support me? No, clearly it is because no action is ever taken against you that it is clear they support you, while others are thrown under a bus after a single incident. Keep practicing those mental gymnastics, maybe some day you will get the medal. |
|
|
|
You skipped the part where you antagonized an insulted him first.
You lie all the time. I can't call you on every one... So this isn't you insulting and antagonizing him after YOU made a mistake? Dude, based on your comments here and to me in PM (don't care about me, my ass!), don't ever get a job in customer service. You don't have the skill set.
I've been dealing with family all day and have not been online. You're a dipshit.
I'll be going back to leaving negative on his account.
He simply laughed at me over pm and blocked me. That's the third lie I've caught you in. I never laughed at you - I simply blocked you from sending more spam PMs. Stop lying to make me look bad. Since you're now on default trust and you left me negative affecting my rating, and since you continue to be dishonest, I have left you negative feedback as well. I consider this issue resolved. You may now cry yourself to sleep, fool. I've offered to prove I was not lieing to this fool, and he simply yells at me a blocks me. I didn't yell at you either. You posted these two things about me which were obviously lies. You need to grow up, child. Yes, so I'm hot headed.
I said you laughed and yellled.
I can in fact see how that's worth ruining my rep.
It's lovely how you continue to avoid any attempts at proving I lied about my postal code, or that I'm not Canadian.
And refuse to accept proof I provide
If any trusted members wish to chat so I can prove I'm Canadian, and my postal code, does in fact contain 3:zeros. Please pm me.
Vox is clearly a child with a god complex.
Go cry yourself to sleep, little boy. No one cares - you brought it on yourself. |
|
|
|
It is well known that a lot of the account sales are either run by or closely monitored by staff so they can keep lists of scammer suspects.
Ah, is this another case of you believing something so it's "well known"? The staff state this themselves. This is the primary reason they state they do not want to ban account sales, because if it was banned then they couldn't monitor the account sales. Try grasping for another straw. Wasn't VODs original rating for this user supposedly lying about his zipcode? What in the fuck does that have to do with scamming? If that is not blowing things out of proportion I don't know what is.
Yes, yes it was. And I spent all day thinking that it was wrong when I couldn't access a computer. As soon as I logged in, I removed the negative trust. You skipped the part where you antagonized an insulted him first. |
|
|
|
Agreed, but what 3 or more cases has he caught me in a lie. Especially one of enough importance to show my untrustworthy.
If you look at the other thread, I took apart the feedback he left me, as it was in fact full of lie's to make things seems worse.
You were lying about having his phone number. I agree it may have been more of a bluff then lie, however you did blow things way out of proportion prior to him even seeing the first thread about your claim. IMO his statement about being hot headed is accurate and is a reason to not want to do business with you as if/when something goes wrong then chances of things getting resolved are low You are talking about things being blown out of proportion? Wasn't VODs original rating for this user supposedly lying about his zipcode? What in the fuck does that have to do with scamming? If that is not blowing things out of proportion I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
Well why don't we look at the effects of getting a negative trust report from someone on default trust list. Assuming you do not have preexisting trust feedback to overcome the negative trust then you will get a trade with extreme caution tag. If you are someone who engages in business that requires an extreme amount of trust, for example someone who deals in gift cards or may need to handle personal information then yes this tag would be detrimental to your business. If however you engage in business where transactions can easily be moderated by some kind of trusted escrow service then all a trade with caution tag will do is get a person's customers to want to use escrow more often. As these people make more deals the positive trust they receive will outweigh one scam report from one user (if one person gives two or more scam reports on the same person it will only count as one). A honest person can buy a new account with fresh neutral trust in the event it is tarnished beyond repair as you describe would happen. IMO a honest person is actually more likely to do so then a scammer because a scammer is risking the purchase price of the new account for when they get caught again while an honest person with an unjust scam rating intends to continue to operate honestly moving forward. I personally think Vod giving negative trust by jumping the gun like he originally did in the case discussed in the OP is an exception to the rule. I would disagree that "lying" is not a valid reason to give someone negative trust. If you are lying about how much bitcoin you have or about your prior trade history then you are trying to get your trading partner to be more comfortable with you which would potentially make them more vulnerable to get scammed. In order to scam someone you obviously need to lie at least one time in order to get the other person to give you money in the assumption they will get something in return. Regardless of your assumption that a negative rating does not inhibit trading, it does in fact do so. People in this community are already SO PARANOID about getting ripped off, that all some one has to see is the red rating and their brain turns off, and they move on. It does IN FACT destroy ones ability to trade almost completely. I love also that your supposed solution as some one who peddles other people's trust is for honest users to buy another account. Self interested much? Further more even if an honest user did try to buy an account his immediately puts them under suspicion of being a scammer and from that moment on they will be treated as such. It is well known that a lot of the account sales are either run by or closely monitored by staff so they can keep lists of scammer suspects. All this would do is make that formerly trusted user enter further into the realm of being suspect, and at that point why try to be honest if everyone is making it so hard and treating you like a scammer? |
|
|
|
It is funny you say that now, because at the time you seemed to agree with my position. Funny how that changed once I started openly criticizing your own trust practices.
It's funny you post that now, because you used to agree with my position when you were in the DefaultTrust. So because I didn't openly criticize you that means I supported you? No not really. In fact I told explicitly you that I thought your behavior was becoming excessive, but instead of controlling yourself you became even worse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
