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

[pugman]

Suchmoon is a SHE?? theymos, you should really reply to this topic..

Anduck lies.  :/

Read the PMs again.  Notice where I type "ah, until this point'?  That is when I lost trust for him.  Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating.  If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.

I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory.

I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations.

Regardless, according to my trust settings both their feedback appear as untrusted so the counter part din't really had any effect.

What you see is as untrusted ratings is not equal to what others see. This is what the concern anduck has.

[1714035871]

1714035871

[1714035871]

1714035871

[suchmoon]

Very nice of you to show up in a thread titled "Trust system abuse".

Did you send this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479

Or how about your petty trust rating on edonkey where you've been proven wrong quite comprehensively? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754

Comments like this are why nobody takes your opinion seriously and why I immediately added you to my exclusion list a long time ago.

suchmoon is a bottom feeder. She will only side with those who she perceives to be more powerful in a dispute as a way for her to gain additional power. She will troll those who she perceives to be less powerful by twisting irrelevant facts/portions of a dispute, and will create a tangent regarding said irrelevant facts, derailing threads. Also similar to Lauda, suchmoon will troll those who she perceives to be weak.   

Thank you, Quicksy, but I feel like you might be projecting a little bit here. The "power" that you speak of appears to be very important to you. Not so much to me. I do perceive you as weak though. Intellectually, ethically, socially weak. Maybe that's why you're so much fun to troll.

Anyway, this is a fairly good attempt to obfuscate Og's shenanigans, I'll give you that. The topic of the thread is "Trust system abuse" BTW. I do believe Og is abusing the trust system by (1) spreading malicious rumors about owlcatz; and (2) refusing to back down for eoakland.

What's your take on that?

[Vod]

Suchmoon is a SHE??

Suchmoon does have the female gender symbol as an icon.   

[pugman]

You tried to rape her as well?

Dude.. Talking about rape is not cool man... Seriously, take that shit down.

Suchmoon is a SHE??

Suchmoon does have the female gender symbol as an icon.   

I never noticed that.. 
Anyhow, Vod what do you have to say on this:

Anduck lies.  :/

Read the PMs again.  Notice where I type "ah, until this point'?  That is when I lost trust for him.  Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating.  If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.

I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory.

I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations.

[xSplit]

Dude.. Talking about rape is not cool man... Seriously, take that shit down.

DUDE he is a PEDOPHILE, he is doxed and left unpunished

[actmyname]

DUDE he is an accused PEDOPHILE on some random site, he is doxed and the people who have done it are left unpunished and I am continuing my butthurt vendetta because I have nothing better to do!

FTFY

[xSplit]

DUDE he is an accused PEDOPHILE on some random site, he is doxed and the people who have done it are left unpunished and I am continuing my butthurt vendetta because I have nothing better to do!

FTFY

There is a report from one of his (ex)coworkers as well

[Vod]

Suchmoon is a SHE??

Suchmoon does have the female gender symbol as an icon.  

You tried to rape her as well?

What is with you and the rape fantasies?  Esp your nephew?  That's sick man.  :/

There is a report from one of his (ex)coworkers as well

No, there isn't.  You are just very gullible. 

[Quickseller]

Anyhow, Vod what do you have to say on this:

Anduck lies.  :/

Read the PMs again.  Notice where I type "ah, until this point'?  That is when I lost trust for him.  Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating.  If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.

I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory.

I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations.

From the looks of things, vod would rather respond to the trolls in an attempt to derail this thread, likely to avoid others seeing the underlying facts.

[Vod]

From the looks of things, vod would rather respond to the trolls in an attempt to derail this thread, likely to avoid others seeing the underlying facts.

And right on clue, the other member who likes to use children against other people.  :/

[xSplit]

Anyhow, Vod what do you have to say on this:

Anduck lies.  :/

Read the PMs again.  Notice where I type "ah, until this point'?  That is when I lost trust for him.  Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating.  If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.

I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory.

I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations.

From the looks of things, vod would rather respond to the trolls in an attempt to derail this thread, likely to avoid others seeing the underlying facts.

I don't want to derail this thread I just want to remind people about his activities, please go on ignoring me and his replies

[Vod]

I don't want to derail this thread I just want to remind people about his activities, please go on ignoring me and his replies

My trust rating and merit score already do that. 

[xSplit]

I don't want to derail this thread I just want to remind people about his activities, please go on ignoring me and his replies

My trust rating and merit score already do that. 

Make sure other inmates will know it too

[digaran]

If you see DT2 members are abusing other people and also misusing the trust system and you see no actions taken by DT1 members who'd included them on DT2, you should tag those DT1 members. currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.

However this whole thing could be avoided if Vod could give a chance to Anduck in the first place. instead of countering Vod's feedback, ask him to forgive Anduck and let us all to move on.

[o_e_l_e_o]

currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.

Have you PMed the DT1 members yet?

[Anduck]

currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.

Have you PMed the DT1 members yet?

E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread.

[o_e_l_e_o]

E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread.

But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list.

[actmyname]

E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread.

But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list.

OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them.

[OgNasty]

currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.

Have you PMed the DT1 members yet?

E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread.

But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list.

OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them.

I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works.  Let me try and simplify.

If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that.  
If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating.  
If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that.

*Here's where it gets tricky.

If you don't agree with someone else's ratings, you can exclude them from your trust network.
If you agree with someone's trust ratings, you can include them in your trust network.

What you shouldn't do is...

Leave someone negative ratings because you don't like their trust ratings.
Leave someone a positive rating to counter someone else's rating.

There are of course extenuating circumstances for every action and that is where the importance of judgement and decentralization comes into play.  The goal here should be to create a network of trust that accurately reflects an individual's trustworthiness.

*Do not confuse excluding someone from your trust network with leaving negative trust ratings.

[Quickseller]

currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.

Have you PMed the DT1 members yet?

E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread.

But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list.

OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them.

I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works.  Let me try and simplify.

If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that. 
If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating. 
If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that.

*Here's where it gets tricky.

If you don't agree with someone else's ratings, you can exclude them from your trust network.
If you agree with someone's trust ratings, you can include them in your trust network.

What you shouldn't do is...

Leave someone negative ratings because you don't like their trust ratings.
Leave someone a positive rating to counter someone else's rating.

There are of course extenuating circumstances for every action and that is where the importance of judgement and decentralization comes into play.  The goal here should be to create a network of trust that accurately reflects an individual's trustworthiness.

*Do not confuse excluding someone from your trust network with leaving negative trust ratings.

Theymos has said in the past it is okay to counter a ln unjust negative with a positive as only a small number of people can get someone removed from DT and excluding someone yourself won’t solve the underlying problem.

A positive that counters a negative should probably also include an exclusion of the person who gave the unjust negative.

A negative to counter a positive is ridiculous as is a negative for “not trusting” someone, barring extreme circumstances.