Abuse of the trust system by Vod

[Mike Christ]

Society would crumble without our present day Judeo-Christian values.

Yes; wherever would we be without sacrificing our children at the command of God?

[AndrewWilliams]

Well, I deny him, as do billions of others....

But thank you Andrew.  I also hope one day you will see the error of your beliefs.

Not going to happen, I've already checked, and I'm right. 

[AndrewWilliams]

Society would crumble without our present day Judeo-Christian values.

Yes; wherever would we be without sacrificing our children at the command of God?

WTF? What does the US Debt Clock have to do with that?

LOL, you crack me up.

[AndrewWilliams]

Well, I still hold out hope one day you will see the truth.

(Try to make friends outside the cult)

I have many non-Christian friends. Jews, atheists.

The thing is, they never tell me I am worshiping a false God   

As long as they are good people and do good things, we're cool.

[Vod]

Well, I deny him, as do billions of others....

But thank you Andrew.  I also hope one day you will see the error of your beliefs.

Not going to happen, I've already checked, and I'm right.  

How did you check that your cult was the correct one?  Did you just ask other cult members?  More than half the population thinks you are wrong, and we have the facts to back it up.

[SaltySpitoon]

So from the last few pages of this thread, I'm taking it you are no longer interested in Vod's feedback, and now debating religion with each other? I think you may want to move the thread to Politics and Society.

[Vod]

So from the last few pages of this thread, I'm taking it you are no longer interested in Vod's feedback, and now debating religion with each other? I think you may want to move the thread to Politics and Society.

Hey, I tried to keep it on topic, but it IS a sunday... cult reassurance day.

One of the mods will have to move it, because AW sure won't. 

[AndrewWilliams]

So from the last few pages of this thread, I'm taking it you are no longer interested in Vod's feedback, and now debating religion with each other? I think you may want to move the thread to Politics and Society.

Of course I am!

Vod keeps changing the subject, and attacking my religion, Christianity, referring to it as a cult.

This is his unchanging tactic.

So, Vod, let's agree to disagree.  

Remove el feedback negativo. Gracias.  

[Vod]

So from the last few pages of this thread, I'm taking it you are no longer interested in Vod's feedback, and now debating religion with each other? I think you may want to move the thread to Politics and Society.

Of course I am!

Vod keeps changing the subject attacking my religion, Christianity, referring to it as a cult.

This is his unchanging tactic.

So, Vod, let's agree to disagree.  

Remove el feedback negativo. Gracias.  

I'm not attacking you - calling your religion a cult is a simple dictionary fact and not an attack in any way. 

But agree to disagree!  From now on, we will keep the conversation on my "abuse" of the trust system.  

[AndrewWilliams]

I'm not attacking you - calling your religion a cult is a simple dictionary fact and not an attack in any way. 

But agree to disagree!  From now on, we will keep the conversation on my "abuse" of the trust system.  

Cult has a derogatory connotation... anyways.


Yes, proceed. Your trust on my feedback is an eyesore, please remove.

[SaltySpitoon]

But agree to disagree!  From now on, we will keep the conversation on my "abuse" of the trust system.  

Ok, so the religion talk is over. Hasn't Vod already given you a reply about this like... 5 pages ago? He doesn't trust you, so he gave you negative feedback. The goal here is to make him not, not trust you, so he removes the feedback (if possible)

I don't know what just saying, remove your feedback is going to do.

[Vod]

I'm not attacking you - calling your religion a cult is a simple dictionary fact and not an attack in any way.  

But agree to disagree!  From now on, we will keep the conversation on my "abuse" of the trust system.  

Cult has a derogatory connotation... anyways.


Yes, proceed. Your trust on my feedback is an eyesore, please remove.

"Cult" is not derogatory in any way.  It's a word that describes "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

[SaltySpitoon]

Cult has a derogatory connotation... anyways.

Yes, proceed. Your trust on my feedback is an eyesore, please remove.

"Cult" is not derogatory in any way.  It's a word that describes "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

*COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH*

But agree to disagree!  From now on, we will keep the conversation on my "abuse" of the trust system. 

[AndrewWilliams]

Ok, so the religion talk is over. Hasn't Vod already given you a reply about this like... 5 pages ago? He doesn't trust you, so he gave you negative feedback. The goal here is to make him not, not trust you, so he removes the feedback (if possible)

I don't know what just saying, remove your feedback is going to do.

That's the problem.

His trust is tantamount to saying "I don't like you."

If you want to lower the denominator for the trust system to be based on such arbitrary thoughts, it would be a disservice to the Bitcoin community.

I'm man enough to recognize you don't use trust for "whims." If I don't like someone I move on; if someone seems shady, let them make asses of themselves.

That said, trust is for trading feedback. At the very most, it can be used to flag a flagrant scammer, as many do in the lending forum.

However he is overstepping his bounds in saying he does not trust me, after he spent two months saying I was a scammer, without any proof. It's time for him to let go, admit he was wrong and be done with it. If everyone on here gave trust to people because they didn't trust them, we would have a lot of useless feedback on our hands.

[Vod]

However he is overstepping his bounds in saying he does not trust me, after he spent two months saying I was a scammer, without any proof. It's time for him to let go, admit he was wrong and be done with it. If everyone on here gave trust to people because they didn't trust them, we would have a lot of useless feedback on our hands.

I think it's time you stepped up and said "yes, I asked for SSN at the start, but I won't anymore."    After all, I still have two messages of you clearly asking for SSN.

I removed the negative trust after I decided I would no longer take anonymous reports like that.  That doesn't mean I was wrong - the proof still exists, but I promised not to share it.

[SaltySpitoon]

But negative feedback is allowed for whatever reason someone wants to give it, as long as its honest. Technically, you can give dishonest feedback as well, but then these threads start.

If Vod wants to give you negative feedback, with 0 risked BTC, saying, "I don't trust this person" that isn't really abuse of the system. Then, someone can check your feedback, see that you were given negative feedback because Vod doesn't trust you, and they can judge whether or not they trust Vod. If Vod had said, I Lost 15 BTC to this Scammer in a fake monkey deal, then it would be grounds for an appeal.

If they trust Vod's appraisal, they won't deal with you. If they don't trust Vod, they will deal with you. Not any different than had they happened across a thread saying that Vod didn't trust you.

[AndrewWilliams]

I think it's time you stepped up and said "yes, I asked for SSN at the start, but I won't anymore."    After all, I still have two messages of you clearly asking for SSN.

I removed the negative trust after I decided I would no longer take anonymous reports like that.  That doesn't mean I was wrong - the proof still exists, but I promised not to share it.

I already said that if I did inadvertently ask for a social security number as security for a loan, I would not do it again in the future. I have stated that at least twice.

You're wrong because you've attacked me with everything from "scammer" to "identity thief" to "liar." When I called you out on it previously, you refused to even discuss it multiple times. It took this thread just to get most of that mumbo jumbo done with.

It doesn't help to rail against someone...  especially when you were accusing me of being scamming for 2+ months, when all the loans I've done are legitimate. I've done 5+ deals on this forum, all with good results. No one has said I have stolen their identity or stolen from them, so I think it's safe to say I am not a scammer and have no ill will.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. So, please, let's start over again.

[Vod]

I already said that if I did inadvertently ask for a social security number as security for a loan, I would not do it again in the future. I have stated that at least twice.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. So, please, let's start over again.

Ok, I can accept ignorance as an excuse.  If you didn't know it was wrong, that's fine.

For the sake of the forum and the staff that have to monitor the "META" subforum, I'll forgive this abuse accusation and start over. 

[pyra-proxy]

But negative feedback is allowed for whatever reason someone wants to give it, as long as its honest. Technically, you can give dishonest feedback as well, but then these threads start.

If Vod wants to give you negative feedback, with 0 risked BTC, saying, "I don't trust this person" that isn't really abuse of the system. Then, someone can check your feedback, see that you were given negative feedback because Vod doesn't trust you, and they can judge whether or not they trust Vod. If Vod had said, I Lost 15 BTC to this Scammer in a fake monkey deal, then it would be grounds for an appeal.

If they trust Vod's appraisal, they won't deal with you. If they don't trust Vod, they will deal with you. Not any different than had they happened across a thread saying that Vod didn't trust you.

This is the root of the issue I think, since Vod is in the good ole boy network, his trust is weighted heavier as it is more visible to the mass majority who won't actually look into the details as compared to the retaliatory feedback that was given to him by people not in the good ole boy network.  Perhaps someone in the Good ole boy network should step up and justly give him his just desserts until the matter is cleared, would you be willing to be a negative trust "escrow" Salty until the matter is resolved?  As the fact of the matter is the mass majority won't look into the facts so Vod is wielding e-peen which is wrong, and the simple fact that he has this e-peen for being an "internet policeman".  This will be my last contribution to these... threads, I've already ignored those which deserve it and that's enough for me but someone with authority and maturity needs to step up where they are needed and this system needs a very serious reconsideration/reevaluation for its effectiveness and purpose.

And to those who invited him into the good ole boy network... they should also reconsider their positions on the matter and use their trust ratings with scrutiny and evidence of trustworthiness and not just invite every "internet policeman" they see into the network.

[AndrewWilliams]

I already said that if I did inadvertently ask for a social security number as security for a loan, I would not do it again in the future. I have stated that at least twice.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. So, please, let's start over again.

Ok, I can accept ignorance as an excuse.  If you didn't know it was wrong, that's fine.

For the sake of the forum and the staff that have to monitor the "META" subforum, I'll forgive this abuse accusation and start over. 

Thank you.