Bitcoin Forum
May 05, 2015, 03:16:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.1 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  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 52 53 ... 163 »
41  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: 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.



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.
42  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.
43  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 12:38:58 PM
You are way off topic. Move your reply here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg11182411
44  Other / Meta / Re: Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules on: April 24, 2015, 12:20:48 PM
I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

OP

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
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.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.

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

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.

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.

45  Other / Meta / Re: Remove my negative trust on: April 24, 2015, 12:06:45 PM
PM people you need to instead of creating a thread..
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.
46  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 11:40:14 AM
Can you provide an example where
  1) someone was suspected of scamming
  2) they provided information to show they were legit
  3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
  4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?

Yes, I can.

1) I was never suspected of scamming.
2) My over 3 years of honestly trading here demonstrates I am legit. I was accused of "lying" on the basis of a topic which is under debate and neither party can prove the validity of the accusation. (additionally "lying" has never been an acceptable use of giving negatives from someone on the default trust.)
3) The negative feedback did not get removed.
4) The person who left the feedback is still on the default trust list.

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

1) True.
2.a) You lied saying staffs protect Vod even after SaltySpitoon explained. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10062871#msg10062871
2.b) Lying is a quality of an untrustworthy person. Trust system is not only for trades and that's why it is trust feedback not trade feedback.
3) It was changed to neutral feedback and you continued what you did earlier and it was reverted.
4) True.

TBH, I think this anti-trust_system behaviour of yours came after you were removed from default trust list. You are trustworthy enough for me except your judgements.

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.
47  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin on: April 24, 2015, 11:24:24 AM

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).


Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce.

It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is.
Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness.

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.
48  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Video: Project Loon - Scaling Up BTC on: April 24, 2015, 07:31:07 AM
I was excited about this project, until I saw it was run by Skynet.
49  Other / Politics & Society / Re: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike on: April 24, 2015, 07:27:16 AM
Quite embarrassing that this was also in Pakistan, somewhere I'm sure the president would like the country to forget we are actively striking with drones in violation of international law.
50  Other / Politics & Society / Re: BitPay Study: Bitcoin is Now an Every-Day Currency on: April 24, 2015, 07:23:20 AM
Perhaps we can find a way to incentivize Bitpay into selling more of that Bitcoin to projects that will hold it for longer periods of time? There have to be business models that have difficulty obtaining btc on a regular basis. They might even be able to get a premium for a guarantee of delivery with a small overhead risk. I would assume this would be in their best interest to see Bitcoin appreciate in value as well.
51  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin on: April 24, 2015, 07:12:33 AM

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).


Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce.

It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host.
52  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Police Officer Caught Selling Stolen Bitcoin Mining Equipment on: April 24, 2015, 06:19:24 AM
Another officer of the law is entangled with crimes involving bitcoin, this time a Police Officer from New Jersey was arrested in a sting operation selling a stolen Bitcoin mining equipment.

Reference link: http://bitforum.info/t/new-jersey-police-officer-arrested-after-selling-stolen-bitcoin-mining-equipment/862

Do you think that theres more police authorities who are involved in illegal activities involving bitcoin?
Why do you think they became interested with Bitcoin when the government itself is not fond of it?

at least it's not a child, or a woman... must be the least corrupt cop in America.

In the future, will the new standard for police be that if they hit you with their cars at under 50mph, they aren't such bad guys?
53  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 05:19:58 AM
Can you provide an example where
  1) someone was suspected of scamming
  2) they provided information to show they were legit
  3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
  4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?



You can also check out my thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.0

Where I have provided all the proof of not being a scammer, and I literally have no one caring to even look at it.

At best, if it doesn't effect people personally or one of their pals, no one gives a shit about trust abuse complaints and ignore them 90% of the time. At worse it just becomes a form of entertainment for compulsive emotionally stunted adults. Then you become the target for protesting the situation. If you are new, you are just a scammer. If you have built a reputation, then that is something they can extort you with and it is just a matter of how big of a mob they need to rally. Justice at its best.
54  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 04:43:11 AM
Can you provide an example where
  1) someone was suspected of scamming
  2) they provided information to show they were legit
  3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
  4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?

Yes, I can.

1) I was never suspected of scamming.
2) My over 3 years of honestly trading here demonstrates I am legit. I was accused of "lying" on the basis of a topic which is under debate and neither party can prove the validity of the accusation. (additionally "lying" has never been an acceptable use of giving negatives from someone on the default trust.)
3) The negative feedback did not get removed.
4) The person who left the feedback is still on the default trust list.

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

Noted. The actual text in the feedback makes it clear that it does not relate to your trading history. The situation is not perfect. I recall that this feedback was updated and altered many times. Which kind of demonstrates it is self-moderated. I accept that you disagree with that feedback, but in the end it's their opinion of you. And their opinion is generally valued. Regardless of it being valid or not.

I love how people's own standards suddenly morph into some thing else when they can be demonstrated to be in violation of their own values, instead of simply examining ones self and modifying their beliefs/behavior. It shows how much people demand what they are familiar with, right or wrong.

The trust system is designed to be about your trading history regardless of whatever little addendum people want to put into it to pretend it is ok. The fact that he modified his trust only shows he was pressured by the general public to reign in his abuse. He removes it for a while or turns it to a neutral, then next time he is offended he does it again knowing that everyone has already read about it the first time and no one will bother to look a second. That is not self moderation, that is a strategy to wear down the attention of the public of the forum.

Leaving a negative rating for "lying" has never been an acceptable standard for leaving a negative trust rating from some one on the default trust.  In fact Beastlymac was removed from the default trust for doing this ONE TIME because a user was attempting to extort him by slandering him with lies, and he was removed.

There are no official rules about how to use the trust system posted anywhere on the forum. It is purposely left this way so that an environment of selective enforcement can be maintained, so that a small group of individuals can dictate what can and can not be said on this forum whilst maintaining an illusion of openness and decentralization.
55  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: I was scammed by kashish948 on: April 24, 2015, 04:00:46 AM
You know what is especially retarded about this situation? He could have probably sold his account for more than he stole from you. LOL!
Kashish likes to think he can outsmart everyone, but all he really does is fuck himself.

P.S. Kashish has now left me negative retaliatory feedback for callng him out. If anyone thinks this guy is a scammer kicking and screaming because he got caught, please flood his trust with negative ratings for me so he understands it works both ways Smiley

I agree kashish948 should receive some more trusted negative feedback. I really don't like the fact this account shows green trust by default after he stole from OP.

After I found out he left me retaliatory negative trust, I pmed a few people who have left him positive ratings in the past, now him being green is no longer a problem. I just want you to know you could have avoided all of this with a little honesty an humility. Good luck with your new name.
56  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Paypal chargeback, for the third time on: April 24, 2015, 02:57:08 AM
The moral of the story:

STOP USING FUCKING PAYPAL!
57  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: I was scammed by kashish948 on: April 24, 2015, 02:50:51 AM
You know what is especially retarded about this situation? He could have probably sold his account for more than he stole from you. LOL!
Kashish likes to think he can outsmart everyone, but all he really does is fuck himself.

P.S. Kashish has now left me negative retaliatory feedback for callng him out. If anyone thinks this guy is a scammer kicking and screaming because he got caught, please flood his trust with negative ratings for me so he understands it works both ways Smiley
58  Other / Meta / Re: Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules on: April 24, 2015, 02:30:19 AM
Tomatocage has contacted me about my trust, and I've listened.  Tecshare will claim this is my fifth or tenth or fiftieth chance, but the point is I believe TC and I've made adjustments.  I told him I would rather stop posting all together rather than let those hundreds of scammers loose onto the forum again.

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Lets build a list of negative ratings Vod left for people that are unrelated to scamming. I am going to skip over the ratings he left based on his mere suspicion because it would probably max out my posting limit:

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference 
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference 
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000     
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference 
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Decksperiment -4: -1 / +0(0)   2015-03-20  0.00000000   Reference   Severe mental issues. Read his past posts and his feedback (sent and received) and be VERY careful.


TECSHARE 92: -0 / +41(41)   2015-03-26  0.00000000   Reference   Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.


There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.
59  Economy / Goods / Re: MINES land mines Vietnam era WARNING metal sign - TELL THE WORLD U MINES! on: April 24, 2015, 01:47:50 AM
update
60  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 24, 2015, 01:30:28 AM
Can you provide an example where
  1) someone was suspected of scamming
  2) they provided information to show they were legit
  3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
  4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?

Yes, I can.

1) I was never suspected of scamming.
2) My over 3 years of honestly trading here demonstrates I am legit. I was accused of "lying" on the basis of a topic which is under debate and neither party can prove the validity of the accusation. (additionally "lying" has never been an acceptable use of giving negatives from someone on the default trust.)
3) The negative feedback did not get removed.
4) The person who left the feedback is still on the default trust list.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all
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 52 53 ... 163 »
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!