Could admins please advise on the Trust issue?

[takagari]

Since we are not allowed off topic at all, I sent an admin a pm, and would rather have it answered in public.

Any posts not by an admin in response to this will be off topic and reported.

Thank You

I'd like for some sort of input on this from the admin staff.

It's now clear, and been stated by many people

The trust system, say's right within it. Very clearly.

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Why are comments such as

Spreads FUD - calls me a liar, and a fool. I've caught him in lies at least 3 separate times now. I tried to be the nice guy and remove negative feedback, he retaliated by opening three threads on me and spamming me with PMs. THEN he added negative trust against me.

Before you consider doing any business with this fool, consider he is hot headed and acts without thought. Add to the fact he has no problem lying, and come to the conclusion he should not be dealt with.

Within the trust system accurate, I've proven that entire statement is full of lies.

Or such as this

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.

Being allowed over and over?

How do any of those statements conform to the rules set out by the board

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.

Maybe a clear response or post from the admin team, as to why or how the trust system is to be used would cut down a lot of this.
Or frankly make it stop.

EDIT:
All of my previous threads have been locked.
Frankly I don't want or care for community input.
I'd like answers from the staff.
If there is no standard for the trust system. I'd like to know this, so I can stop believing what it say's and others can be aware it holds no real backing.
If there are standard's, such as what it says when you click on negative. Than they should be enforced.

EDIT2:

Can I ask you why are you opening a thread for every problem ?  Please....

That was already stated and deleted
As was my requesting this for admin use only.

Every time I've gone off the topic, even in my own threads, to ask another question, my post has been removed.

EDIT3:
I do NOT want my own posts deleted off of my own threads, I'm pretty decent at deciding what my OWN topic is and sticking to it.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Well honestly, a lot of what VOD has claimed has been disproved, or when he's been asked to back up his feedback statements. He simply hasn't. or he falls on making fun of you, insulting you, picking on your grammer etc.
He has never actually given proof for the feed back he has left.

So If someones a huge LIAR, than sure, leave feedback, but prove it.

So although I believe the system doesn't need the rules, but when Lie's are posted what can be done?

Do I honestly need to message the three members that have trusted him. To catch their attention?

Quote
Spreads FUD - calls me a liar, and a fool. I've caught him in lies at least 3 separate times now. I tried to be the nice guy and remove negative feedback, he retaliated by opening three threads on me and spamming me with PMs. THEN he added negative trust against me.

Before you consider doing any business with this fool, consider he is hot headed and acts without thought. Add to the fact he has no problem lying, and come to the conclusion he should not be dealt with.

Event he feedback he has left now is a lie. And I'm a Liar? lol.

Quote
I've caught him in lies at least 3 separate times now.
Prove it! Where? the postal code thing was your misunderstanding what I said, So if your simply going of where I said your response to me was you yelling or laughing. maybe that's because a single one line response such as the following, pisses people off.
Quote
You're an idiot.  I haven't been online all day - been babysitting.

..
Quote
I tried to be the nice guy and remove negative feedback, he retaliated by opening three threads on me and spamming me with PMs.
I had the three threads AND All the pm's sent, before you were done babysitting. And long before you left my a neutral instead of negative. So there's his Lie number 2 in my rating post.

Quote
THEN he added negative trust against me.
That was already there. I removed it before going to bed, then replaced it once I saw you left a Negatively written neutral comment still calling me a liar.

Quote
consider he is hot headed and acts without thought.
Hot headed, Okay. I'm pissed. Acts without thought? No, I had a pretty sound reason for being pissed.

Quote
Add to the fact he has no problem lying
Screen shots of all the open and easy lieing I've done?

As for my deleted posts, I definitely felt they were unwarranted, as many were within my own thread, or in threads that were already covering multiple topics.

[SaltySpitoon]

Again, the trust system is not a definitive proof of trustworthiness, its just a feedback system. As far as standards, there aren't enforced standards by a central forum authority, there are enforced standards by the community, the system is what you make of it. If someone leaves or recieves unfair feedback, it is up to the parties involved to resolve it. The loose interpretation of what is allowed on the feedback system is what gives it flexibility, however also brings the issues that anyone that has read meta in the last week has come to be familiar with. If feedback was only allowed for confirmed scammers, it would be completely useless in preventing scammers. If feedback is allowed for confirmed scammer and suspected scammers, that excludes a lot of shady indicators. So the system is moderated how the community moderates it themselves, Staff don't have an influence on trust. So if you decide to give someone negative feedback for wearing bunny slippers you are welcome to do so. However, the thought behind that, is if you give people false or frivilous feedback, then your input begins to mean less and less. If a legendary member with 1000 trades under their belt and years spent here spams negative feedback for everyone on the forum, their feedback means absolutely nothing to anyone. If you aren't on default trust but have a history of leaving accurate feedback, your feedback can mean more than that of someone on the default trust list, and eventually someone should take notice and add them to Default trust. Default Trust is not supposed to be the governing trust body of this forum, its the default, people are meant to create their own trust lines and move away from default by the time they are no longer newbies and have individuals that they trust. That however has not been the case, as people are either too lazy to change it or they just don't care.

I'm going to mention it very briefly as an example, but I don't want to derail your thread. Obviously you are talking about Vod's feedback for you. Default Trust means that you are trusted in some form of line to leave accurate feedback for others, not necessarily that you are trustworthy yourself. The first branch of Default Trust are those added directly by Theymos, the people that Default trust add to their list then become the next level (1) and so on. Vod is not on the first level of default trust created by Theymos, he is under three members (as of last time I checked) that are on the first level, effectively putting him on the 2nd level of trust, and people he adds to his trust list would be on 3rd etc. Vod isn't on my trust list, so I have no say in his actions nor will I judge, because I chose not to take responsibility for his trust actions by not having him on my list. What I will say is that he has been a huge community scam buster for a long time now, if he abuses what the community sets as the standards for the feedback system, no one will take his opinions seriously, and the people on default trust who have him on their lists should consider removing him. It would be a loss in that case since the hundreds of scammers that he has positively marked would then have their feedback diluted as well. Perhaps thats why people are fighting for Vod. The entire system is intentionally a gray area. If you remove options, people will exploit it, if you leave it completely open and allow the community to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable, then they can adapt to new threats rather than having to rework the system. That is what would cause inconsistencies.

If you want to leave people feedback saying you don't like them because they use the word "the" too often, you are welcome to do so, just know that your feedback will be diluted and worthless when it actually matters. The only difference between being on default trust and not being on default trust, is that others are staking their reputations on your feedback as well. If Vod goes off the deep end (I don't want to get into a debate here about it, as I said I'm not involved so I don't care, let the parties involved handle it) it reflects poorly on the people who added Vod to their trust lines. Its a self interest system, a forum member isn't going to give trust to someone who is going to hurt their reputation.

Unrelated: If your posts in meta are being deleted, report them. Moderators are supposed to take extreme caution when touching meta issues. That said if they are undoubtably spam, they will be deleted.

[BadBear]

This was my post in one of the threads earlier.

I think what it basically boils down to is what TF said.

"Spreads FUD - calls me a liar, and a fool." is a highly inappropriate comment to leave as a negative trust rating. Calling someone a liar in no way justifies a negative trust, like Vod has given, and is contradictory to the forum's policy of free speech.

Is lying or slander a good reason to leave someone negative feedback (free speech is irrelevant)? Personally I don't think it's so black and white, more of a grey area. An example, and for the purposes of this we'll say that I do in fact care what people on the internet say about me  . If someone were to start posting that I'm really pirate@40 in disguise, fabricating evidence, etc, and I leave this person negative feedback, is that really a wrong thing to do? The answer to this is going to vary from person to person, and at the heart of that answer is going to be, whether or not you trust me. If you do trust me, then it is valid feedback, because he's a known liar who can not be trusted. If you don't trust me, then maybe I really am Pirate, and I'm leaving this feedback in order to silence my critics and slander those who dare speak the truth. There are degrees in between of course. It all comes down to your own opinion and your perception of those involved. Opinions, outhouses, etc. Some people are okay with others having different opinions, some are not.

Vod isn't my buddy, I don't know him personally, and he is only in my trust list as long as the community thinks he should be. If the community doesn't trust him, then I would remove him (though note that lots of complaints means nothing if the complaints aren't valid). With the addition of exclusions, it's no longer necessary for Vod to removed from anyone's trust list, just for enough people in the right places to distrust him enough (or his feedback) to exclude him.

[takagari]

Please follow the rules posted by the op.

Double standard.
they step in one time, next time they state they have no right to step in.

For the record, theymos removed me from DefaultTrust when I gave negative trust to gweedo, who made a number of very misleading attack threads on me and my businesses. Here's the PM I received from theymos:

You have just been sent a personal message by theymos on Bitcoin Forum.

IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.

The message they sent you was:

IMO your ratings of gweedo are inappropriate. His thread title is inaccurate and overly harsh, but this doesn't imply that he's untrustworthy. I feel that allowing your ratings to exist in the default trust network would be counter to the forum's mission of free speech, so I've removed you from the default trust network.

Did the forum's mission of free speech disappear?!

[takagari]

takagari, I think there's a good reason why self-moderated threads are disabled in Meta...it should be a place for people to express their honest, un-censored opinions about the forum. I don't know the context of your deleted posts but you can't just not allow people to reply to a thread about a contemporary Bitcointalk issue/problem. If you ONLY want staff responses, send them a PM.

But yes, I agree with the statements made by the staff.

Your wrong. I'm within my right. The mods have actually removed 5 or 6 posts off here already.
a member has the right to set rules in their own thread.