User Vod abusing DT position (petty red-rating with provable lies as a reason)

[figmentofmyass]

this does come across a bit spiteful, or perhaps grounded in misunderstanding. i think the red trust should be reserved for scammers. do you really think it's necessary here, Vod?

as for the original feedback, it doesn't seem tag-worthy. publicly bidding on your own auction is basically an undisclosed reserve. does it explicitly violate any forum rules? if anything, just deserves a warning to disclose a reserve in the OP. admittedly i only glanced through the reference thread, so correct me if i'm wrong.....

[1714884977]

1714884977

[1714884977]

1714884977

[1714884977]

1714884977

[Anduck]

this does come across a bit spiteful, or perhaps grounded in misunderstanding. i think the red trust should be reserved for scammers. do you really think it's necessary here, Vod?

as for the original feedback, it doesn't seem tag-worthy. publicly bidding on your own auction is basically an undisclosed reserve. does it explicitly violate any forum rules? if anything, just deserves a warning to disclose a reserve in the OP. admittedly i only glanced through the reference thread, so correct me if i'm wrong.....

I agree it's grounded on misunderstanding.

Publicly bidding on auctioneers own auction does not violate forum rules. I also asked several people what they think about this: some thought it's wrong, some thought it's alright. E.g. forum owner theymos said he thinks it's alright. Auctioneer bidding on the auctioned item is perfectly normal -- auction rules are same for all. But in these forums auctions the norm is to not do that, which I did not know back then 2-3 years ago when this happened. As I've stated many times, I will do as is the norm in these forums and have done so in all my auctions after the said auction. Going against the norm is NOT SCAMMING. In my country, it's the norm that auctioneer can bid on auctioned items. It really does vary between cultures, auctioned items, auctioneers, IRL/Internet etc. There are all sorts of norms and auction styles around the world. We can discuss this more in another thread -- this thread is about Vod abusing his position. Vod already admitted he doesn't feel I did anything untrustworthy regarding the said auction. To me it looks like he is just now using it as an excuse to abuse his position.

I think that lining me with scammers is outrageous and unfair. It is abuse done by Vod. I would need to lick Vods ass to stop this abuse from happening? I was told that it would be the easiest way to get him off me. Not going to happen. Vod must face what's to be faced. I know others are afraid / unwilling to voice themselves about this, because nobody wants to get into this shit storm. There's a significant risk of wrecked trust.

[Quickseller]

As you can see,
Vod started a discussion with me about the ratings. Vod noticed my red rating towards him would affect him (while he thought I was on the default trust list.)
Vod suggested that ratings to be changed.
Tone changed after he realized I was not on the Default trust list.
Vod admits that he doesn't think I did anything wrong. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.")
I proposed that we both remove our ratings then, because Vod apparently doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy anymore and I don't necessarily have the need to announce the world how much I trust Vod.
I guess this pissed him off. (After all, I did tell him that I don't trust him.) After this, he changed his rating towards me as red and blocked me.

I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.   The new dishonestly, in addition to the old dishonesty, is what led to the fresh trust.

This logic is a good example of your intelligence and ability to apply morals to situations. Or lack thereof.

Bidding on your own auction is different from having a hidden reserve because the potential to bid on the auction was not previously disclosed.

[xSplit]

He just shitposted my reputation as well for asking a loan "without" a collateral in his opinion, nevertheless it covered 70% of the loan in my opinion and anyway even if it wasn't he has no right to do so, there are people asking for loans without collaterals as well and it seems to be allowed. His arrogance in playing god/policeman made my account worth less for no reason.

I did not ask anything to him and even tried to fix this by closing the thread he did not like but I got no answers so far. I've sent him three pms and I know he is online because he did it just few moments ago.

[Anduck]

As this is somewhat hard to follow, I try to clear it up once again.

Ratings & events timeline:
Dec '17:      Vod rates Anduck, red rating, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Dec '17:      Anduck rates Vod, red rating, stating ”Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that.”
Dec '17?:      Vod changes rating from red to neutral, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod blocks Anduck
Apr 23, '18:    Vod changes rating from neutral to red, stating: ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter.”

References, messages ordered by time:
1:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”You currently have a negative on me for something I took back months ago.  Is it your intention to keep it on there?”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.”
               The event Vod refers to is an auction that was held by Anduck in March 2016. This auction was over two years ago.
               Vod clearly says that he believes Anduck did nothing untrustworthy regarding that auction.

2:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/”
               Vod threatens Anduck that he will red-rate Anduck if Anduck doesn’t change his rating.
3:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?”

4:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/”
               Vod misunderstands. Anduck has not said or hinted anything about his trust towards Vod being changed, or about the feedback in question being retaliatory.

5:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you. It's up to you. I think it'd be alright to stop the games and remove these ratings.”
               Anduck corrects Vods misunderstanding: the trust towards him has NOT changed. (Anduck still distrusts Vod)
               The only logical way to understand this message is that "this is the case" is an answer to "you just didn't trust me".
               This is so, because it is elaborated in sentence "there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you", trust being publicly negative at the time.
               Compare:
               "I don't trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == LOGICAL. "my trust" refers to the NEGATIVE trust or distrust at the time.
               "I trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == ILLOGICAL as trust is NEGATIVE/DISTRUST at the time. This also wouldn't make sense anyway.


This thread events opened up:

May 16, '18:   Anduck makes a public thread about Vods trust system abuse.
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”You previously stated [...] that your feedback was not retaliatory, and you actually didn't trust me.  You lied [...], where you clearly offer to remove your feedback if I remove mine.”
               Vod accuses Anduck of lying. "Lie" being that Anduck asked Vod to drop the ratings all together [3]. That is not a lie. That is a proposal.
               Apparently Vod sees such proposals as "lying". Note: Vod threatened (or proposed?) Anduck earlier [2] that if Anduck didn’t change his rating, Vod would red-rate Anduck.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”Clearly it was retaliatory, and you lied to the community when you said it wasn't.”
               Vod was already corrected about his misunderstanding [5 and in this thread], yet he still continues with this false argument.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck calls Vod a scammer: ”You clearly post […] that people don't need to be aware of your actual feeling towards me - basically saying you call me a scammer to get your red trust removed.”
               This doesn’t make any sense. Also, Anduck hasn’t and isn’t calling Vod a scammer.
   
May 16, '18:    Vod states: ”This is additional dishonesty with the bidding on your own auction BS...”
               This ”dishonesty” is based on Vods earlier provably false claims about Anduck and his actions.
               Vod mentions the auction case as dishonesty. However, Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Clear contradiction.
               
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck scammed an auction: ”There is no gray area here - you scammed an auction, then you lied about the reason you left me feedback.”
               Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Now he says Anduck scammed it. Clear contradiction.
               No lying happened either. Vod sticks to his illogical misunderstanding even though he was already corrected several times [5 and in the thread].

May 16, '18:   Vod states: ”I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.”
               This contradicts what actually provably happened.
               First of all, Vod threatened Anduck [2] which is far from "willing to keep it as neutral".
               Second, "when you admitted via PM", no such admitting happened as everyone can see.
               Third, Vod again brings up how Anduck "actually DID trust" -- this illogical misunderstanding by Vod has been corrected to Vod several times [5].
                  
Vods actions are based on these false claims done by him. At this point, it can’t be seen as Vod misunderstanding, because he was corrected several times earlier (regarding both claims).
There are clear contradictions in his arguments and claims, in addition to pure lies about me and what provably happened.
I still would like to believe that he's not doing this on purpose, but it's becoming harder and harder to believe that. This sort of abuse done by DT member should be stopped.

[Quickseller]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think Vod is going to remove his rating.

I would suggest contacting HostFat, dooglus, and Cyrus regarding the rating, and they might remove from from their trust lists. Unfortunately Vod has had many problems in the past, including leaving negative ratings for personal reasons but neither dooglus nor Cyrus has removed Vod as a result. HostFat has excluded Vod in the past, I am not entirely sure why he removed the exclusion.

[digaran]

@Vod, your pride is your enemy. if you think that you have made a mistake no matter how slight, please change your feedback and make it right.

[xSplit]

As this is somewhat hard to follow, I try to clear it up once again.

Ratings & events timeline:
Dec '17:      Vod rates Anduck, red rating, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Dec '17:      Anduck rates Vod, red rating, stating ”Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that.”
Dec '17?:      Vod changes rating from red to neutral, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod blocks Anduck
Apr 23, '18:    Vod changes rating from neutral to red, stating: ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter.”

References, messages ordered by time:
1:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”You currently have a negative on me for something I took back months ago.  Is it your intention to keep it on there?”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.”
               The event Vod refers to is an auction that was held by Anduck in March 2016. This auction was over two years ago.
               Vod clearly says that he believes Anduck did nothing untrustworthy regarding that auction.

2:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/”
               Vod threatens Anduck that he will red-rate Anduck if Anduck doesn’t change his rating.
3:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?”

4:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/”
               Vod misunderstands. Anduck has not said or hinted anything about his trust towards Vod being changed, or about the feedback in question being retaliatory.

5:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you. It's up to you. I think it'd be alright to stop the games and remove these ratings.”
               Anduck corrects Vods misunderstanding: the trust towards him has NOT changed. (Anduck still distrusts Vod)
               The only logical way to understand this message is that "this is the case" is an answer to "you just didn't trust me".
               This is so, because it is elaborated in sentence "there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you", trust being publicly negative at the time.
               Compare:
               "I don't trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == LOGICAL. "my trust" refers to the NEGATIVE trust or distrust at the time.
               "I trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == ILLOGICAL as trust is NEGATIVE/DISTRUST at the time. This also wouldn't make sense anyway.


This thread events opened up:

May 16, '18:   Anduck makes a public thread about Vods trust system abuse.
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”You previously stated [...] that your feedback was not retaliatory, and you actually didn't trust me.  You lied [...], where you clearly offer to remove your feedback if I remove mine.”
               Vod accuses Anduck of lying. "Lie" being that Anduck asked Vod to drop the ratings all together [3]. That is not a lie. That is a proposal.
               Apparently Vod sees such proposals as "lying". Note: Vod threatened (or proposed?) Anduck earlier [2] that if Anduck didn’t change his rating, Vod would red-rate Anduck.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”Clearly it was retaliatory, and you lied to the community when you said it wasn't.”
               Vod was already corrected about his misunderstanding [5 and in this thread], yet he still continues with this false argument.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck calls Vod a scammer: ”You clearly post […] that people don't need to be aware of your actual feeling towards me - basically saying you call me a scammer to get your red trust removed.”
               This doesn’t make any sense. Also, Anduck hasn’t and isn’t calling Vod a scammer.
   
May 16, '18:    Vod states: ”This is additional dishonesty with the bidding on your own auction BS...”
               This ”dishonesty” is based on Vods earlier provably false claims about Anduck and his actions.
               Vod mentions the auction case as dishonesty. However, Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Clear contradiction.
               
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck scammed an auction: ”There is no gray area here - you scammed an auction, then you lied about the reason you left me feedback.”
               Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Now he says Anduck scammed it. Clear contradiction.
               No lying happened either. Vod sticks to his illogical misunderstanding even though he was already corrected several times [5 and in the thread].

May 16, '18:   Vod states: ”I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.”
               This contradicts what actually provably happened.
               First of all, Vod threatened Anduck [2] which is far from "willing to keep it as neutral".
               Second, "when you admitted via PM", no such admitting happened as everyone can see.
               Third, Vod again brings up how Anduck "actually DID trust" -- this illogical misunderstanding by Vod has been corrected to Vod several times [5].
                  
Vods actions are based on these false claims done by him. At this point, it can’t be seen as Vod misunderstanding, because he was corrected several times earlier (regarding both claims).
There are clear contradictions in his arguments and claims, in addition to pure lies about me and what provably happened.
I still would like to believe that he's not doing this on purpose, but it's becoming harder and harder to believe that. This sort of abuse done by DT member should be stopped.

Bumping this for visibility as it seems to be a worse case than mine, incredible his arrogance

[digaran]

The guy seems like a clown with nothing better to do than looking for reasons to hand out negative trust. And on top of that, a lot of people are stroking him, giving him more confidence and making it go on

You have got some balls .
Newbie asking for no collateral loan can't be taken seriously.

[Anduck]

There are some off-topic replies in this thread. Please stay on topic.

Also bumping this thread. Again: I know many are afraid to voice their opinions and many are very frustrated that these things happen. It's not good. Even when this particular case is logical and obvious in the end, but longsome and somewhat complex to get a grip off. Community is the judge here -- that's how forum staff apparently want it to be.

[TheButterZone]

After eBay codified the global norm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that it's not unethical?

Not allowed
    Bidding on your own items with another account
 
Why does eBay have this policy?
Shill bidding is unfair to buyers and it's illegal in many places in the world. We have this policy to discourage shill bidding and to make it clear what can happen when people don't follow these guidelines.

[Anduck]

After eBay codified the global norm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that it's not unethical?

Not allowed
    Bidding on your own items with another account
 
Why does eBay have this policy?
Shill bidding is unfair to buyers and it's illegal in many places in the world. We have this policy to discourage shill bidding and to make it clear what can happen when people don't follow these guidelines.

Another account is something else than the same account. Also, this thread has nothing to do with any auction. Read this thread to understand that Vod blackmailed me and as the result when I did not bend, he proceeded with rating me red, and his rating contains provable lies. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40906371#msg40906371.

[TheButterZone]

After eBay codified the global norm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that it's not unethical?

Not allowed
    Bidding on your own items with another account
 
Why does eBay have this policy?
Shill bidding is unfair to buyers and it's illegal in many places in the world. We have this policy to discourage shill bidding and to make it clear what can happen when people don't follow these guidelines.

Another account is something else than the same account. Also, this thread has nothing to do with any auction.

Distinction without any real difference, as eBay blocks the auctioneer from using their own account to shill bid. The same person is the same as the same person. Auction threads aren't editable for a reason; the auctioneer brazenly bidding on their own auction is in effect, revising their own minimum starting bid/opening bid around the edit lock. Changing the terms of an auction mid-auction is unethical & in many jurisdictions illegal.

If you had set a reserve amount & decided to reveal it mid-auction, that would not be a shill bid, but you should specify that you're revealing it & not just put an amount that could be confused with a shill bid. Oh, and for fairness, I encrypt my reserve amounts in the OP so they can be revealed later without being able to be changed arbitrarily mid-auction.

What thread has something to do with this auction?

ETA: The only way this makes a lick of sense is if you were publicly authorized to auctioneer a third party's property - unlike the Bitcointalk usual, people auctioning their own property. You can't bid to acquire something you already own. If the third party doesn't object to you being the winning bidder, I suppose you must have already discussed the most you were willing to pay in a private sale & they rejected your offer, thinking they could get more at auction despite a lower starting bid, in which case you'd effectively agreed to a secret reserve bid/price floor.

CONTEXT!

[xolxol]

I do receive red tags for using this jr.member account which is my alts,a true dickhead and a total moron to this forum.
Abusing the trust system like what the pharmacist is doing,they want to dominate this forum for the sake of money.

Look at his feedback to me, he doesnt trust me for using this account.Arguing to this moron will cause your account to have reds he does want to clean this forum but he is the first abuser here.

[Vod]

Look at his feedback to me, he doesnt trust me for using this account.

I don't trust you because you don't respect others who have been here a lot longer than you.  :/

[Anduck]

Vod.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40906371#msg40906371

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Abusing the trust system like what the pharmacist is doing,they want to dominate this forum for the sake of money.

Just FYI, this thread isn't about me, and I can't effectively defend myself when any replies are going to be basically off-topic.  If you have so much of a problem with me, create a new thread in Reputation or bump one of the older ones from members who had an issue--preferably the former.

I don't mind if you sling mud at me for giving scammers and account sellers much-deserved red trust, but if you think that has anything to do with money you're mistaken.  I'm not sure where that claim is coming from.

[xolxol]

Abusing the trust system like what the pharmacist is doing,they want to dominate this forum for the sake of money.

Just FYI, this thread isn't about me, and I can't effectively defend myself when any replies are going to be basically off-topic.  If you have so much of a problem with me, create a new thread in Reputation or bump one of the older ones from members who had an issue--preferably the former.

I don't mind if you sling mud at me for giving scammers and account sellers much-deserved red trust, but if you think that has anything to do with money you're mistaken.  I'm not sure where that claim is coming from.

You are using the DT power to do what you think is right,i saw someone you tagged because of of giving feedbacks to his alts telling people that these are his their alts,you dont deserved your position.

@VOD STFU,
anyone can tell anything here,its none of your business im just telling the truth about the DT members, hiliarious and loyceV are good ones here.
there are no forum rules that limiting the words that should be used here moron,you are old enough but it doesnt mean that you are ahead to anyone. I am a member since 2011 FYI..

[Vod]

@VOD STFU,
anyone can tell anything here,its none of your business im just telling the truth about the DT members, hiliarious and loyceV are good ones here.
there are no forum rules that limiting the words that should be used here moron,you are old enough but it doesnt mean that you are ahead to anyone. I am a member since 2011 FYI..

I like the way your mind works.  Telling me to shut up and then posting anyone can say anything they want. 

[pugman]

You are using the DT power to do what you think is right,i saw someone you tagged because of of giving feedbacks to his alts telling people that these are his their alts,you dont deserved your position.

Isn't that why the trust system was created, if they think a person is a scammer, they should tag them?

TP, you should create your rep thread, if you haven't already, it would be really funny to read people saying stuff about you.

anyone can tell anything here,its none of your business im just telling the truth about the DT members, hiliarious and loyceV are good ones here.
there are no forum rules that limiting the words that should be used here moron,you are old enough but it doesnt mean that you are ahead to anyone. I am a member since 2011 FYI..

So you're protecting your account, but you're not telling the truth, by no means. You're just going everywhere and telling people to shut up and the usual "fuck you" statement. If you really think anybody is abusing the trust system, create a thread in Reputation.

Edit: fixed typo.