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

[Anduck]

This isn't off-topic - in fact it is the crux of the matter. Ignoring all the PMs, the he-said-she-said, trading neutrals and negatives and all the rest of it, you performed a dishonest act and were tagged for it. That's all that is relevant as far as I'm concerned.

All "he-said-she-said" is public and verifiable. There's not very much of that. I even linked all of it to you. So go and make your own conclusions instead of being a lazy ass still commenting here about matters you've not learned about. Only reason for you to ignore all the PMs is when you want to avoid the truth. Vod clearly stated in there why he negatively rated me and it has nothing to do with that auction he's talking about in his rating. If you actually read the sources, you'll learn that the whole auction thing is only a tool Vod is using to justify his actions. His actual reasons to rate me, told by him in various contradictory statements, is in the sources. Read it before commenting more nonsense. Dogs flying may in your opinion be "dishonest act". Nobody was scammed, auction rules were followed, forum rules were followed. It's your opinion if you think that something is dishonest. As you can see in this thread, people have different opinions about that. It's not even up to opinion really: no scamming happened whatsoever -- Vod claims (in addition to rest of his lies) that scamming happened. How many times do I need to ask you to read the provable and undisputed sources, the timelines and events of what happened, before commenting nonsense again?

[1715000646]

1715000646

[1715000646]

1715000646

[suchmoon]

This isn't off-topic - in fact it is the crux of the matter. Ignoring all the PMs, the he-said-she-said, trading neutrals and negatives and all the rest of it, you performed a dishonest act and were tagged for it. That's all that is relevant as far as I'm concerned.

All "he-said-she-said" is public and verifiable. There's not very much of that. I even linked all of it to you. So go and make your own conclusions instead of being a lazy ass still commenting here about matters you've not learned about. Only reason for you to ignore all the PMs is when you want to avoid the truth. Vod clearly stated in there why he negatively rated me and it has nothing to do with that auction he's talking about in his rating. If you actually read the sources, you'll learn that the whole auction thing is only a tool Vod is using to justify his actions. His actual reasons to rate me, told by him in various contradictory statements, is in the sources. Read it before commenting more nonsense. Dogs flying may in your opinion be "dishonest act". Nobody was scammed, auction rules were followed, forum rules were followed. It's your opinion if you think that something is dishonest. As you can see in this thread, people have different opinions about that. It's not even up to opinion really: no scamming happened whatsoever -- Vod claims (in addition to rest of his lies) that scamming happened. How many times do I need to ask you to read the provable and undisputed sources, the timelines and events of what happened, before commenting nonsense again?

What would you say if the winning bidder in your auction refused to pay or paid less than the winning bid?

[Anduck]

What would you say if the winning bidder in your auction refused to pay or paid less than the winning bid?

If you win an auction, you're obligated to pay what you bid unless auction rules state otherwise. Try to see the difference between events happening during the auction and after the auction. While auction is running, your bid may be outbid by anyone. Getting outbid is not unfair. When the auction ends, highest bid wins.

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread. Let's give Vod some space to reply to the questions.

[o_e_l_e_o]

All "he-said-she-said" is public and verifiable. There's not very much of that. I even linked all of it to you. So go and make your own conclusions instead of being a lazy ass still commenting here about matters you've not learned about. Only reason for you to ignore all the PMs is when you want to avoid the truth.... How many times do I need to ask you to read the provable and undisputed sources.

I have read in depth the post where you outline the timeline of events. It is peppered with your own personal views on the statements, which are completely subjective, so I would hardly call it "undisputed".

Nobody was scammed

A scam does not have to be successful for someone to be tagged as a scammer (e.g. alia)

It's your opinion if you think that something is dishonest. As you can see in this thread, people have different opinions about that.

And I'll go with what the law says - the practice is forbidden.

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread.

I can understand that you want to shoehorn this discussion back to the who-called-who a liar, who-threatened-who, etc. as you feel you have a stronger case there. It seems you accept that self-bidding is a shady practice, which is why you don't want to talk about it.

[suchmoon]

What would you say if the winning bidder in your auction refused to pay or paid less than the winning bid?

If you win an auction, you're obligated to pay what you bid unless auction rules state otherwise. Try to see the difference between events happening during the auction and after the auction. While auction is running, your bid may be outbid by anyone. Getting outbid is not unfair. When the auction ends, highest bid wins.

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread. Let's give Vod some space to reply to the questions.

Vod has already replied at least a couple of times. It doesn't look like you'll get anything new out of him or change his mind.

So you're saying that it's not ok for the bidder to back out of the deal. But it's ok for the seller to back out of the deal (via shill/self bid). Sounds kinda lopsided. Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

[Vod]

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread. Let's give Vod some space to reply to the questions.

Hashed to death already. 

I don't trust you because you committed actions I find unethical.

Any new information?   

[Anduck]

All "he-said-she-said" is public and verifiable. There's not very much of that. I even linked all of it to you. So go and make your own conclusions instead of being a lazy ass still commenting here about matters you've not learned about. Only reason for you to ignore all the PMs is when you want to avoid the truth.... How many times do I need to ask you to read the provable and undisputed sources.

I have read in depth the post where you outline the timeline of events. It is peppered with your own personal views on the statements, which are completely subjective, so I would hardly call it "undisputed".

Feel free to tell me how I am wrong in anything in that summary. In any case, you can read the raw sources (available in that same thread) and end up in the same or similar conclusions. The statements are what they are. If Vod tells me that he will negatively rate me if I don't do what he says, that was changing my rating, I see that as a threat. That for instance. Someone could come and argue that it's "gentle proposition" or whatever bullshit. Please go argue in that thread as it's more on-topic there. You can then link your own summary and conclusions here. Do as you like, really.

Nobody was scammed

A scam does not have to be successful for someone to be tagged as a scammer (e.g. alia)

Correct. In this case, scamming was not attempted either.

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread.

I can understand that you want to shoehorn this discussion back to the who-called-who a liar, who-threatened-who, etc. as you feel you have a stronger case there. It seems you accept that self-bidding is a shady practice, which is why you don't want to talk about it.

I want Vod to address my questions. I want Vod to realize what he's doing. I want all the people to realize what's going on in these forums. I want changes to the Default Trust system as it's encouraging heavy abuse/misuse and causes fear of speech as of now. Simple adjusting of the default trust system could make it a lot more fair and credible. Trust system is not a game. Yet it has formed into one. I want things to improve to make this forum better. And I want this thread to stay on topic. I also want people to read what has happened before commenting.

I think I've discussed self-bidding and auctions in general to a great length already. I can talk about it with you in another thread or in private. Maybe we can continue in that Reputation thread? What do you not know yet? What do you want?

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

[Vod]

If Vod tells me that he will negatively rate me if I don't do what he says, that was changing my rating, I see that as a threat.

I would see that as a threat too.  Luckily I never told you that.  

I want all the people to realize what's going on in these forums. I want changes to the Default Trust system as it's encouraging heavy abuse/misuse and causes fear of speech as of now. Simple adjusting of the default trust system could make it a lot more fair and credible. Trust system is not a game. Yet it has formed into one. I want things to improve to make this forum better. And I want this thread to stay on topic. I also want people to read what has happened before commenting.

Not enough to post from your main account though....  

[Anduck]

Vod has already replied at least a couple of times. It doesn't look like you'll get anything new out of him or change his mind.

So you're saying that it's not ok for the bidder to back out of the deal. But it's ok for the seller to back out of the deal (via shill/self bid). Sounds kinda lopsided. Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

He has not answered AFAIK. Give me links to the replies if you feel you're right.

Again, see the difference between a running auction and ended auction.

[Anduck]

If Vod tells me that he will negatively rate me if I don't do what he says, that was changing my rating, I see that as a threat.

I would see that as a threat too.  Luckily I never told you that.  

Your private message to me:

Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/

This is direct threat. "Do that or I do this" -threat. Your message means the following: "You have to change your rating to neutral or I will negatively rate you". Do you agree? If not, where am I failing here?
You gave me permission to publish that private message.

[Vod]

Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/

This is direct threat. "Do that or I do this" -threat.
You gave me permission to publish that private message.

A direct threat is "I will kill you". 

You can read what you want into my statements.  I think you have already proven yourself to be incredibly dense.

[Anduck]

Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/

This is direct threat. "Do that or I do this" -threat.
You gave me permission to publish that private message.

A direct threat is "I will kill you".  

You can read what you want into my statements.  I think you have already proven yourself to be incredibly dense.

You gave me the strict option to either change my rating or be rated negatively. If that's not a threat, maybe you'd prefer to call it blackmailing?

[Vod]

You gave me the strict option to either change my rating or be rated negatively. If that's not a threat, maybe you'd prefer to call it blackmailing?

You call it, and me, whatever you want. 

Now, any new information before I move on?

[suchmoon]

Vod has already replied at least a couple of times. It doesn't look like you'll get anything new out of him or change his mind.

So you're saying that it's not ok for the bidder to back out of the deal. But it's ok for the seller to back out of the deal (via shill/self bid). Sounds kinda lopsided. Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

He has not answered AFAIK. Give me links to the replies if you feel you're right.

Again, see the difference between a running auction and ended auction.

If I'm the bidder I don't see the difference. You can back out of the deal, why can't I? Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

[hybridsole]

Regarding the auction, I'm not sure why Vod cares about a misinterpretation of auction etiquette from years back, which Anduck has since said will not do again. Anduck has done several deals and has gained the trust of myself and many collectors. I'm not aware of Vod ever frequenting the collector subsection, so it is odd that he would leave this neg after 2 years. Take that opinion for what it's worth. It's too bad he has default trust, because this is a petty complaint at best against an asset and respected dev in the community (just google Anduck and bitcoin if you don't know his contributions).  The fact that one person can make a person's trust rating appear to be illegitimate at first glance is wrong, especially when you have so many positive comments from very respected people. 

Vod I don't know you, I am here only to vouch for Anduck but if you really want to be seen as a legitimate scam buster, stop going after core devs for petty issues years ago.

[suchmoon]

Regarding the auction, I'm not sure why Vod cares about a misinterpretation of auction etiquette from years back, which Anduck has since said will not do again. Anduck has done several deals and has gained the trust of myself and many collectors. I'm not aware of Vod ever frequenting the collector subsection, so it is odd that he would leave this neg after 2 years. Take that opinion for what it's worth. It's too bad he has default trust, because this is a petty complaint at best against an asset and respected dev in the community (just google Anduck and bitcoin if you don't know his contributions).  The fact that one person can make a person's trust rating appear to be illegitimate at first glance is wrong, especially when you have so many positive comments from very respected people. 

Vod I don't know you, I am here only to vouch for Anduck but if you really want to be seen as a legitimate scam buster, stop going after core devs for petty issues years ago.

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

[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.

[pugman]

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.

If you are trying to act neutral, don't take words posted by Anduck as fact. 

After my last conversation with him, I took over 96 hours to make my decision to tag him. 

I don't want to misunderstand here, but what are you implying?
I have one question for you vod, for now atleast : Why did you change back your rating against Anduck? Is it because of you believing Anduck's feedback to be retaliatory? Or is it  because of some other reason.

[digaran]

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

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

I have one question for you vod, for now atleast : Why did you change back your rating against Anduck? Is it because of you believing Anduck's feedback to be retaliatory? Or is it  because of some other reason.

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.

[Joel_Jantsen]

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