Trust system abuse / DT2 member Vod is provably dishonestly rating people

[digaran]

Any DT member who trusts Anduck can counter Vod's rating if they feel that this is too harsh.

You are suggesting DT2 members to abuse their power? didn't expect anything less from you. this is a bad practice. one does not simply favor some people over others just because they were given a position of power> DT2.

Just because things didn't work in your favour doesn't mean they are wrong.What he meant is, if there are any more members on the DT who don't agree with the feedback left by Vod,they're free to give a counter feedback to restore his trust ratings.That way,the trust system remains decentralised to an extent.By the way you can still get people from DT1/DT2 to leave you positive ratings if they fell you're right and have your trust restored

Wrong, that is just wrong, that is misuse of DT and that could mean that Vod's feedback worth nothing, in other words:

"Vod, we are not happy about your feedback, instead of providing our reasons we would like to screw you over and use our DT position as a personal tool and not to use it to better the forum and it's community's business affairs, we just want the OP's profile to look OK by default when people only are looking at his profile without reading his trust page, therefore we would like to deceive people by countering your ratings".

The right thing to do is:

Dear and respected forum member Vod, we believe that tagging the OP for something that happened 2 years ago is not the right use of your DT power, we as the community members would like to voice our concerns and ask you to correct this issue please.

Then the community would see Vod's reaction, they could then tag Vod if they see that he is not listening to reason, if Vod has done more good than bad, they shouldn't kick him out of DT, they should show him the same treatment> tagging him for not complying to the wills of the general consensus.

Countering Vod's feedback is equal as telling him to go fuck yourself.

[pugman]

Tomato or tomato. result is still bad and untrustworthy thing to do.

Just like you charging people to remove negative trust?

Stop cornering Vod like this, simply say that dear Vod you need to change your rating. it doesn't give you the right to tag the OP for something that happened 2 years ago.

I am not corneing Vod. And to be clear, Vod was right in giving the negative rating in the first place. My only concern is what changed his mind to change the tag.

[suchmoon]

Any DT member who trusts Anduck can counter Vod's rating if they feel that this is too harsh.

You are suggesting DT2 members to abuse their power? didn't expect anything less from you. this is a bad practice. one does not simply favor some people over others just because they were given a position of power> DT2.

That is not abuse. What the hell is wrong with you? Do search up what abuse means. Misuse would make sense but abuse, no.

It's not even misuse. It a perfectly valid theymos-endorsed use case for the trust system. It can be used to counter a potentially unfair negative rating.

Wrong, that is just wrong, that is misuse of DT and that could mean that Vod's feedback worth nothing, in other words:

"Vod, we are not happy about your feedback, instead of providing our reasons we would like to screw you over and use our DT position as a personal tool and not to use it to better the forum and it's community's business affairs, we just want the OP's profile to look OK by default when people only are looking at his profile without reading his trust page, therefore we would like to deceive people by countering your ratings".

Complete nonsense. It just means that someone disagrees with Vod.

The right thing to do is:

Dear and respected forum member Vod, we believe that tagging the OP for something that happened 2 years ago is not the right use of your DT power, we as the community members would like to voice our concerns and ask you to correct this issue please.

Then the community would see Vod's reaction, they could then tag Vod if they see that he is not listening to reason, if Vod has done more good than bad, they shouldn't kick him out of DT, they should show him the same treatment> tagging him for not complying to the wills of the general consensus.

Countering Vod's feedback is equal as telling him to go fuck yourself.

Who's "we" and "they"? Your handpicked forum politburo?

[digaran]

It's not even misuse. It a perfectly valid theymos-endorsed use case for the trust system. It can be used to counter a potentially unfair negative rating.

What a joke. so what happens if non-DT members disagree with Vod? what happens to the 99.99% of forum members who are not on DT? such decentralized system you have here. <sarcasm>

[suchmoon]

It's not even misuse. It a perfectly valid theymos-endorsed use case for the trust system. It can be used to counter a potentially unfair negative rating.

What a joke. so what happens if non-DT members disagree with Vod? what happens to the 99.99% of forum members who are not on DT? such decentralized system you have here. <sarcasm>

Non-DT members can voice their concerns (which Anduck did) and any DT member can take action or not (no takers yet).

[Anduck]

It's not even misuse. It a perfectly valid theymos-endorsed use case for the trust system. It can be used to counter a potentially unfair negative rating.

What a joke. so what happens if non-DT members disagree with Vod? what happens to the 99.99% of forum members who are not on DT? such decentralized system you have here. <sarcasm>

Non-DT members can voice their concerns (which Anduck did) and any DT member can take action or not (no takers yet).

False.
DT members taking action would require all DT1 members who have added Vod to DT2 to remove him. Such action is not needed or wanted here, though. Best outcome would be if Vod stopped abusing DT position.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493

[suchmoon]

It's not even misuse. It a perfectly valid theymos-endorsed use case for the trust system. It can be used to counter a potentially unfair negative rating.

What a joke. so what happens if non-DT members disagree with Vod? what happens to the 99.99% of forum members who are not on DT? such decentralized system you have here. <sarcasm>

Non-DT members can voice their concerns (which Anduck did) and any DT member can take action or not (no takers yet).

False.
DT members taking action would require all DT1 members who have added Vod to DT2 to remove him. Such action is not needed or wanted here, though. Best outcome would be if Vod stopped abusing DT position.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493

I was talking about a DT2 member countering Vod's neg.

[Anduck]

I was talking about a DT2 member countering Vod's neg.

Ok. I have 8 ratings by DT members which of one is negative. It shows my trust as "? ? ?" and orange, so it doesn't seem to be "counterable". This rating by Vod is in the "trusted ratings" list by default. So silly.

[suchmoon]

I was talking about a DT2 member countering Vod's neg.

Ok. I have 8 ratings by DT members which of one is negative. It shows my trust as "? ? ?" and orange, so it doesn't seem to be "counterable". This rating by Vod is in the "trusted ratings" list by default. So silly.

Well, obviously you need a NEW positive rating AFTER Vod's negative, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Funny how you post retaliatory feedback and go on multi-page rants about trust system abuse and you don't even know how the system works.

[greeklogos]

I thought red trust get used only in the case when someone sell something through the forum and scam people by just taking money without sending a thing, or for managers of those campaigns that didn't pay to their members.
If something like you tell is actually happening I have no idea how we could solve it, because of now with stronger terms around merit everyone afraid to loose the profile, so I think now people prefer to be silent even more than before.

[Anduck]

I was talking about a DT2 member countering Vod's neg.

Ok. I have 8 ratings by DT members which of one is negative. It shows my trust as "? ? ?" and orange, so it doesn't seem to be "counterable". This rating by Vod is in the "trusted ratings" list by default. So silly.

Well, obviously you need a NEW positive rating AFTER Vod's negative, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Funny how you post retaliatory feedback and go on multi-page rants about trust system abuse and you don't even know how the system works.

My rating to Vod is from 2017. His rating to me is from 2018. Retaliatory? It's kinda funny how you keep on ignoring all the proved facts here, and you still keep on commenting. And Vod's awfully silent..  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493

I thought red trust get used only in the case when someone sell something through the forum and scam people by just taking money without sending a thing, or for managers of those campaigns that didn't pay to their members.
If something like you tell is actually happening I have no idea how we could solve it, because of now with stronger terms around merit everyone afraid to loose the profile, so I think now people prefer to be silent even more than before.

Agree. I'm trying to be "awarding" red trust for any sort of over-the-line untrustworthy behavior that I deem important for others to know about. Shortly, people who I wouldn't trade with and prefer to not do business with. Like Vod here who keeps on provably lying and harassing me since last year.

You can also verify everything by reading the undisputed events and their timeline, and our private conversation that was published --also undisputed. Actually, Vod has proven no evidence or proof of his claims about me. It's mind-boggling that he's doing this at this length already. More info here.

[suchmoon]

I was talking about a DT2 member countering Vod's neg.

Ok. I have 8 ratings by DT members which of one is negative. It shows my trust as "? ? ?" and orange, so it doesn't seem to be "counterable". This rating by Vod is in the "trusted ratings" list by default. So silly.

Well, obviously you need a NEW positive rating AFTER Vod's negative, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Funny how you post retaliatory feedback and go on multi-page rants about trust system abuse and you don't even know how the system works.

My rating to Vod is from 2017. His rating to me is from 2018. Retaliatory? It's kinda funny how you keep on ignoring all the proved facts here, and you still keep on commenting. And Vod's awfully silent.. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39447493#msg39447493

Your feedback for Vod says "Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that." Are you now going to claim this was NOT in response to Vod's original feedback, since deleted?

[Vod]

Your feedback for Vod says "Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that." Are you now going to claim this was NOT in response to Vod's original feedback, since deleted?

Of course it was retaliatory.

How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?

And Vod's awfully silent.. 

Why argue any further?  Everything has been said.  Stop harassing me. 

[digaran]

DT2 members need not to counter Vod's feedback, why would they do that? if they think that Vod has abused his power on DT2 they need to tag him. countering Vod's feedback without any reference as to why they are giving the OP some positive trust is misuse of the trust system. that would mean that they are favoring OP for past deeds whether good or bad.

However, since Vod has tagged the OP for something from the past, it is OK to give positive trust to OP for something that happened in the past as well. but Vod has to get tagged if they think that he has abused DT2.

Therefore, I'd like to ask a DT member to tag this OP with green trust and provide reference link back here for people to see the reason for such countering.

[suchmoon]

DT2 members need not to counter Vod's feedback, why would they do that? if they think that Vod has abused his power on DT2 they need to tag him. countering Vod's feedback without any reference as to why they are giving the OP some positive trust is misuse of the trust system. that would mean that they are favoring OP for past deeds whether good or bad.

However, since Vod has tagged the OP for something from the past, it is OK to give positive trust to OP for something that happened in the past as well.

Why are you still posting this nonsense here? Is the OP your client? That would explain why you both are so proudly clueless about the trust system.

[Anduck]

Your feedback for Vod says "Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that." Are you now going to claim this was NOT in response to Vod's original feedback, since deleted?

Of course it was retaliatory.

How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?

And Vod's awfully silent..  

Why argue any further?  Everything has been said.  Stop harassing me.  

You told me to ask you questions. I asked you a bunch of questions here. Why are you avoiding to answer to any of the questions? Do you think it's acceptable for you to e.g. fake quote, lie and do all this untrustworthy and provably dishonest shit?

You abuse your DT position. You've provably lied about me and what has happened a lot, too. It's funny, because everyone can see the truth by looking at the sources. Everyone can see your fake quote, instances of lying, threatening etc. You don't seem to acknowledge any of this.

You're continuing to act intellectually dishonest. I fail to see how people would trust you when you do that. I've told you various times why I thought we both should've drop our ratings towards each other. This is a very silly, escalated thing after all. But, it changed when you changed your stance about me not being untrustworthy in your eyes. Previously you told me that you don't see me as untrustworthy, so I were up to drop the ratings all together then. I asked you if we both could drop our ratings as you said you don't think I'm untrustworthy, and I on the other hand wouldn't need to necessarily announce to the world how I distrust you, because of your (back then mild, now it's a lot worse) untrustworthy behavior.

About my rating being retaliatory:
Initially, Vod said bunch of untrustworthy stuff, like called me a scammer when I had not scammed anyone. I rated you, Vod, because of that, just like my rating reason states. It's perfectly valid and not placed because of your rating itself. I simply can't trust people who call me a scammer when I've not scammed anyone. Later I've thought maybe I could've let it slide, but back then I chose to announce it to the world by rating you negatively. It turned out that you're more than just an untrustworthy person.

[suchmoon]

About my rating being retaliatory:
Initially, Vod said bunch of untrustworthy stuff, like called me a scammer when I had not scammed anyone. I rated you, Vod, because of that, just like my rating reason states. It's perfectly valid and not placed because of your rating itself. I simply can't trust people who call me a scammer when I've not scammed anyone. Later I've thought maybe I could've let it slide, but back then I chose to announce it to the world by rating you negatively. It turned out that you're more than just an untrustworthy person.

Vod claims you're untrustworthy because you bid on your own auction.

You claim Vod is untrustworthy because of unpleasant things said to you.

Let's say I ignore your flexible moral backbone for a minute and assume that your feedback is not retaliatory. The best interpretation I can come up with is that you both exercised your freedom of speech.

[digaran]

you both exercised your freedom of speech.

You are clueless about freedom of anything. between OP and Vod, only Vod's exercise of free speech has any meaningful weight. OP's means jack, it doesn't matter what OP says, according to DT made up rules DT members are always right and others are not.

[Vod]

e.g. fake quote

It was actually this person that made the fake quote.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39391773#msg39391773

I quoted it before I realized he was just making a suggestion.  I have edited my post and I apologize again.

I did a mistake

See?  It happens to all of us. 

[Anduck]

e.g. fake quote

It was actually this person that made the fake quote.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg39391773#msg39391773

I quoted it before I realized he was just making a suggestion.  I have edited my post and I apologize again.

I see. You didn't quote me at all. You had edited the quote fraudulently to be from me, which was *your* edit -- not done by anyone else. What you "quoted" was never available as is, so you did made the edit yourself to make it show like I had said it. I had not posted what you quoted to be said by me. (Except in a quote, too, which shows clearly who I quoted.) Another case of you being intellectually dishonest! Thanks for apologizing, though. This is the first time I see you apologize for this fake quote you did. You still have post(s) where you do "conclusions" based on this fake quote of yours.

The one whose quote you took and edited to be said by me wasn't "fake quoting" anyone. He didn't attribute the text in the quote tags to anyone -- he didn't mark that its said by someone when it wasn't. So he did not make a fake quote like you claim. Stop lying.

I did a mistake

See?  It happens to all of us.  

It would be nice if you would at least quote the whole sentence if you're going to quote. Whatever, really.