Bitcoin Forum
April 27, 2015, 10:32:39 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 162 »
1  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTS] TI-83 Plus calculator on: Today at 05:31:32 AM
I want to know the answer to the most important question you have to ask about any TI-80 series calculator... does it have Drugwars?
2  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Vod became a threat to the stability of the forum on: Today at 04:08:10 AM
Vod certainly has gotten on people's nerves with his actions, but i have never seen anyone that got burned if he/she didn't deserve it in some way.
He says he's not a cop, but on this forum he sure is closest to that title, and if it was up to me i would hire him as staff, because without people like him this forum would be hackforums v2.

It takes guts to stand up to wrongdoing, especially when higher ranked members are involved, but Vod doesnt care; im confident that if even Theymos himself tried something unethical, Vod would
be the first one to flag him, and then back off to licking his boob..
If anything, he deserves more credit than what he's getting, but that's just my opinion.


Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
3  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: I was scammed by kashish948 on: Today at 04:05:46 AM
I have removed my negative rating for Kashish. I would suggest others do the same once killyou posts.
4  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow... on: April 26, 2015, 09:54:43 PM
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.

So are you telling there must not be any scambusters in this forum?

There would definitely be much fewer posts on meta complaining about trust abuse so of course it would be positive. The only problem is there would be so much more threads on scam accusations  Roll Eyes

Do you really believe that a handful of virtual mallcops are going to stop the tsunami of fraud on the internet? Doubtful. People who are wronged tend to seek justice and bring offenders to light. Preventative precrime type scambusting is inefficient, it also harms reputable users because people want to play private investigator and pump up their trust ratings by harassing people and negative rate them over the flimsiest of pretenses. They get entertained, they look like they are doing something to help, they collect positive trust, then use that trust to abuse their position even more.

Instead of trying to stop the ocean from flooding in why don't you teach some people how to make a boat? We should be focusing on teaching people how to protect themselves, not going on crusades looking for people to crucify to satiate the boredom of a handful of asshats at the expense of the entire community.
5  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 26, 2015, 09:05:00 PM
There are guidelines, solid rules cause issues. I personally don't agree with what Vod does sometimes, but I don't disagree with what he does all the time. I don't feel the need to exclude him nor do I feel the need to add him to my trust list. I could name you a handful of "rules" to default trust, but others might disagree. Its not my place to set rules, and it's not Theymos' place to set rules. Set your own rules, get people to agree, and those are the rules. Talk hypocrisy, you don't think it's fair that one person thinks differently than another person? I must exclude Vod because you want me to? You inherited your default trust position from me. I no longer wished to stake my reputation on the fact that you would make rational decisions, so I removed you from my trust list. Tomatocage is willing to stake his reputation on Vod, and that's his choice. Lets force people to make decisions based on what I think and not what the general consensus is. That's not a very non dictorial approach either. You keep trying to equate different branches of default trust, but each human rationalizes things differently. Perhaps Tomatocage is more patient than I? But regardless, just as Default trust inherits its rules from the community, it also inherits its meaning and trust from the community. If people disagree with Vod and Tomatocage refuses to cut him, Tomatocage looses his trust in the community making his branch worthless. Default trust only means as much as the community as a whole makes it.

In my opinion people are using the trust system wrong, but who am I to tell everyone that they are doing it wrong? I'm responsible only for myself, if you don't like how it works, make your own trust list and get others to use it. "Default" by definition does imply that it is automatically opted in until you change it yourself. Stop fighting default trust and as a community make an attempt to replace it yourself, it is designed to be used however you want to use it.

There are no official guidelines for using the default trust posted now either, don't start lying now. Expecting every user to review every trust dispute to know the non-rules is frankly retarded. So its not your place or Theymo's place to make rules, only enforce them selectively? "get people to agree, and those are the rules" Thats what is known as a popularity contest or mob rule. History shows how well this form of government works. If this is really what you think this is the best way, then why is there a default trust list to begin with? Oh yes, that's right that same mob might take over if it was gone. Can't have the supposedly decentralized system be decentralized now can we?

No one is forcing you to think anything, I am calling out the fact that you as well as other members of the forum staff only enforce the rules when you want to exclude some one for the crime of being unpopular, not because you are following a set of rules that are the same for everyone. This is called nepotism and or selective enforcement, and it does nothing but destroy communities in addition to driving away contributing members that dared to say things the trustmasters don't approve of. The trust system is broken, and yes people are using it wrong. However how exactly do people follow unposted rules? The staff have the ability to set standards and enforce them, instead everything is left ambiguous, confusing, and infested with Nepotism and infighting, and the staff primarily use their authority within the trust system to settle their personal disputes not to aid the community. There are no rules, you leave people to learn by example, then set horrible examples of how to use the system. Why should you take any responsibility for that?
6  Economy / Goods / Re: REAPER Worlds HOTTEST pepper -RARE VEGGIE SEEDS -LIVE PLANTS- HAVE MORINGA! on: April 26, 2015, 08:29:36 PM
7  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 26, 2015, 12:20:58 PM
Yeah, its too bad that someone didn't get to your reports in a timely fashion, make whatever excuses you wish, you still over reacted in my opinion. You would have to talk to Tomatocage about why Vod is on his trust list, as he is the only one who can answer that. I don't have any say with what Tomatocage or anyone else on default trust does with their lists.  I dont know if his negative rating for you is acceptable, and its not for me to judge, because I haven't chosen to add Vod to my trust list so its not my concern. Steadfast rules cause people to seek loopholes. For the same reason forum moderation is left up to the judgment of collective individuals. We can set guidelines, but if we set rules then the system becomes ineffective. Think about Paypal's or Ebay's rules. Because of their policies, representitives are forced to make decisions that are insane. They are willing to give up rational judgement in order to follow those rules, "Oh you have proof you completed this transaction? Oh, well we don't have protocol for this type of transaction, so the other party wins by default, sorry you are boned". As far as trust system rules, the community dictates them. Thats part of the reason I can't say whether or not Vod's feedback for you is fair, I can't say whether its ok for people to leave feedback for those they haven't traded with, etc. The feedback system is regulated by the community, so that it can adapt as new issues arise. The discussions in meta and generally accepted practices set what is Ok for people to do.

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.
8  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 26, 2015, 09:09:08 AM
Tecshare wasn't removed from default trust for lying or being untrustworthy, he was removed for losing his temper and being vindictive. Default trust isn't 100% about who is trustworthy, its about who leaves accurate feedback for others. The most trustworthy person in the world who leaves shoddy feedback will be removed.

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.
9  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller Gave me a negative trust Without Considering possibilities on: April 26, 2015, 08:49:03 AM
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.
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.
10  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Vod became a threat to the stability of the forum on: April 26, 2015, 08:37:34 AM
Just incase he does not understand the stolen part it's Microsoft OP chances are is stealing from.  There is no such thing as a MSDN account that allows sales.  Just look at the TOS

Your not allowed to:rent, lease, lend, resell, transfer, or sublicense any Services or portion thereof to or for third parties, except as explicitly permitted herein or in license terms that accompany any Services component;

If you show license terms that Microsoft is allowing you to somehow do the above  you could prove it's legal.  But I personally have not seen this ever. The selling of keys killed Microsoft Technet.

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.
11  Economy / Digital goods / Re: $100 Tmobile Prepaid Credit on: April 25, 2015, 01:04:44 PM
12  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 25, 2015, 12:37:29 PM
Saying again, this forum and trust system is centralized not decentralized.

Trust system is designed to help others. People shouldn't judge people by looking trust rating but by looking trust feedback and reference. Trust feedback is necessary to know who to trust and who not to. Your saying tells you want to get into default trust list. I don't know why though. You still are trusted and can do trades. Just 1 trusted negative feedback doesn't make you scammer. People still trust you but somehow, your goal is to make Vod remove from default trust list like you stated in your thread or perhaps, to get rid of this system.
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.
13  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow... on: April 25, 2015, 12:31:06 PM
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.
14  Other / Meta / Re: quickseller on: April 25, 2015, 07:37:50 AM
What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

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.
15  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 08:47:28 PM
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.
16  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why the 'safe space' movement is a liberal assault on freedom on: April 24, 2015, 08:36:37 PM
How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists;all
17  Other / Politics & Society / Re: International Zionism Did 91123 facts on: April 24, 2015, 08:23:03 PM
I found some "nazi" Jews:
18  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 08:03:30 PM
It is quite possible that I don't see the entire picture here.  But from what I can tell, the forum moderators are wanting to grrow some sort of organic network of trust where they don't have to moderate it, it basically self regulates based on participation of many people and their activities.

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.
19  Other / Meta / Re: Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules on: April 24, 2015, 07:36:35 PM

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Uh! I am sorry. Some conclusions can be wrong. You should investigate more before spreading disinformation.

I don't even know how could this be a debatable topic where you concluded. I am hearing for first time making a debate on a matter after concluding it.

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.

2) You said staff is protecting Vod and even created a thread about staff's selective enforcement conspiracy things. How can we agree with this conclusion? How can theymos benefits from these conspiracies? Don't tell me it's money because he can earned more and there is no money involved in these feedback. Your words are false. Furthermore, how are staffs protecting Vod when he is in trust list of Tomatocage.
 I am hoping you are joking about SaltySpitoon. He is a Global Moderator. There is no "higher" staff than Global Moderator. He has more than "very little" power. SaltySpitoon is a neutral diplomat. I haven't seen him making a biased statement/opinion. Furthermore, it wasn't an opinion, it was a statement.
 "Matter of debate"? You said a false things without even discussing. Obviously, the post you made against staff is not in a "discussing" or "debating" style, it is made on your feelings and your conclusion. So whatever you conclude aren't false? You are spreading disinformation but I am wishing it to be a misinformation. Hope this wish can be fulfilled.

3) I looked meaning of "abusive" but it isn't fitting here. According to *your version* of abuse, aren't you being an abuser? You started this anti-Vod war when you were removed from default trust list. Till that day, staffs are ok & DefaultTrust is ok. From that day forth, DefaultTrust is bad.

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:
 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.
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.
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.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar? 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?

You can if you aren't telling a lie. Partial yes. It is still not allowed.

BS comes from everyones' mouth. It is clear is about you. Feedback you left and feedback Vod left starts from same end but reach at different place. There is slight difference in them.

"people who have built up reputations" is also you. Nobody silenced you for good things you did. You still can. Sadly, you are still going for makeup conspiracy theories. Bitcointalk is centralized and hence, trust system. This centralized power doesn't give Vod special status.

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.

"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.

This isn't upsetting Vod, you are telling a lie about whole staffs which is bad for whole forum.

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 one person stating their opinion is going to harm the staff or the forum. I will wait.
20  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: I was scammed by kashish948 on: April 24, 2015, 06:29:49 PM
Killyou please update here if the issue is resolved.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 162 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!