Vod trolling me with red tag!

[digaran]

Blah blah blah

I'm not a DT member, my feedback is untrusted and you could read the references yourself.
About 90 day tag, if those people stay after getting tagged, maybe we should give them another chance, 90 days is enough time to test them, don't you think?

[suchmoon]

Where is the lie? show me and then see if I am willing to remove a false negative feedback or not.

"Vod has given actmyname positive trust because actmyname has tried to hide the truth from the public by countering Vod's negative feedback on Anduck"

"After getting on DT2 it seems that marlboroza account has changed hands. this is bad and it is clearly an evidence of a deeper corruption within trust system of this forum."

"Misuse/abuse of DT position. untrustworthy behavior. this person shouldn't hold any power, because he is corrupted and doesn't know how to use DT power he has over 99.99% of people in this forum."

Let's start with those.

Seeing how you ignored the response to the bolded part - I take it you lied again and you're not going to remove the lies from your feedback?

[digaran]

Where is the lie? show me and then see if I am willing to remove a false negative feedback or not.

"Vod has given actmyname positive trust because actmyname has tried to hide the truth from the public by countering Vod's negative feedback on Anduck"

"After getting on DT2 it seems that marlboroza account has changed hands. this is bad and it is clearly an evidence of a deeper corruption within trust system of this forum."

"Misuse/abuse of DT position. untrustworthy behavior. this person shouldn't hold any power, because he is corrupted and doesn't know how to use DT power he has over 99.99% of people in this forum."

Let's start with those.

Seeing how you ignored the response to the bolded part - I take it you lied again and you're not going to remove the lies from your feedback?

I would change my negative trust on matlboroza because I have to admit that I was too harsh on him, yes I am willing to change my tag on him to neutral just in case if he ever reset his password, we could have a reference as to when he has changed his email address. regarding Vod's feedback:

I am willing to give him a chance if I see that he is willing to admit that tagging actmyname with some green was a misuse of the trust this community has given him. I am also willing to give actmyname a chance if he admits that countering Vod's feedback without having any past dealings with Anduck was wrong.

I am constantly changing my methods and I am trying to improve myself based on the reactions from the community members. some DT members are not like that unfortunately, they would tag somebody and would leave them for dead.

[actmyname]

I am also willing to give actmyname a chance if he admits that countering Vod's feedback without having any past dealings with Anduck was wrong.

I have already put down my thoughts about your idea of this "abuse".

1) You do not know if I have had any past dealings with Anduck
2) Past dealings with Anduck don't actually matter when concerning feedback
3) Countering the feedback still leaves the negative there.You have already said that both Vod and my feedbacks toward Anduck were cases of abusing the trust system. I don't understand why you wouldn't want someone to counter an abusive negative trust, though.

[DarkStar_]

I am also willing to give actmyname a chance if he admits that countering Vod's feedback without having any past dealings with Anduck was wrong.

Why is it wrong? From theymos himself (who you believed should have 100% control the trust network):

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.)

[digaran]

I am also willing to give actmyname a chance if he admits that countering Vod's feedback without having any past dealings with Anduck was wrong.

Why is it wrong? From theymos himself (who you believed should have 100% control the trust network):

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.)

Well my don DarkStar_, theymos said that to avoid kicking DT members from their positions all the time, but if you see that a DT member has a habit of countering only some feedbacks and not some others, it could result in favoritism and eventually a total misuse of default trust.

Let us take the case of Anduck, if we could agree that Vod has tagged Anduck out of despite and foolishness, what we need to do is to ask either Blazed or some other DT who has a green tag on Anduck to re-enforce  a previously  left green tag on Anduck to counter Vod's unjust feedback and also a DT member has to tag Vod for his misbehavior if we are going to counter Vod's feedback.

[DarkStar_]

theymos said that to avoid kicking DT members from their positions all the time

Or like, to keep the trust system somewhat decentralized?

if you see that a DT member has a habit of countering only some feedbacks and not some others, it could result in favoritism and eventually a total misuse of default trust.

And how does actmyname fit into this? I'm not aware of another similar case.

Let us take the case of Anduck, if we could agree that Vod has tagged Anduck out of despite and foolishness, what we need to do is to ask either Blazed or some other DT who has a green tag on Anduck to re-enforce  a previously  left green tag on Anduck to counter Vod's unjust feedback

And why is this? One does not have to trade to disagree with a trust rating.

also a DT member has to tag Vod for his misbehavior if we are going to counter Vod's feedback.

So because an individual believes that someone has made poor judgement for a single rating, that someone should be seen as untrustworthy? There's no requirement to have the same beliefs as everyone else (again, better decentralization).

[digaran]

Or like, to keep the trust system somewhat decentralized?

Favoritism=centralized trust system.

And how does actmyname fit into this? I'm not aware of another similar case.

Favoritism=centralized trust system.

And why is this? One does not have to trade to disagree with a trust rating.

Favoritism=centralized trust system.

There's no requirement to have the same beliefs as everyone else

Same end result: favoritism=centralized trust system.

Furthermore, I would like to point to the fact that Vod is trying to blackmail Anduck and myself with his red tags, first he said to Anduck that one of them has to remove the tag in order to come to an agreement for removing both of their tags=personal use of default trust system, Vod is blackmailing Anduck just to get his own red tag removed. then Vod tags me 2 days after I tagged him, this is clear evidence of retaliatory feedback, I'm sure that everybody could see this.

[Flying Hellfish]

I'm sure that everybody could see this.

You keep repeating this yet ironically enough when EVERYONE responds and tells you they do not see this, you simply ignore them and continue to repeat your nonsense...

You're a persistent little troll, I do have to give you that!

[o_e_l_e_o]

Vod is blackmailing Anduck just to get his own red tag removed.

Except Anduck offered for them to both remove their tags on each other and Vod refused, so your statement is 100%, undeniably incorrect.

[suchmoon]

Well my don DarkStar_, theymos said that to avoid kicking DT members from their positions all the time, but if you see that a DT member has a habit of countering only some feedbacks and not some others, it could result in favoritism and eventually a total misuse of default trust.

Of course not all ratings need to be countered... that wouldn't make any sense. You're fighting against a legitimate use of the trust system.

[digaran]

So all of you have pussied out? none of you is talking about Vod's tag on me. because 9 from 10 are just pussies in this forum. I call people like you cowards, when you see somebody powerful(in your own opinion) is doing shit to others you would do more shit to others just to make that somebody happy, to make that somebody someday tag you with some green trust and say that "good guy" "good forum member" "this member fights against spam and scam".

Here is my message to you all:

Guys, girls, whatever you have and see in this world will be gone someday, only what you do and what you decide to do with your life matters and will remain with you forever.

For once in your life, talk against tyranny and see how good it feels.

[TMAN]

"if" I was DT I would tag you every single day with a long winded ramble.

you are not to be trusted.. end of, move on - have a tear wank!

[o_e_l_e_o]

So all of you have pussied out? none of you is talking about Vod's tag on me. because 9 from 10 are just pussies in this forum.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason none of us are talking about Vod's tag is because we all agree with him that you are a scammer, spammer and troll?

[TheQuin]

none of you is talking about Vod's tag on me.

Maybe nobody apart from you cares. This might be a shock to you but a tiresome troll getting yet another red tag isn't particularly interesting.

[queennathalia]

Vod is not fit to be on DT he is consistently abusing other people with his red tags. in this case Vod is trying to moderate the trust system directly. I'm a non-DT member, what I do and whom I tag is none of Vod's business, yet he tagged me to say that he wants to bully me and to retaliate against my tag on him.

I suggest that you need to accept the fact that you had tagged from DT members. You ain't earned red tagged if that reporter does't have solid proof to make a red trust. If I am on your situation, I will accept it. Instead of make reputation fighting/debate to them. Learn about the what you experienced here. That is the better for you.

[Harlot]

Let's not also forget his utterly nonsense negative trusts that claim changing an email address is somehow 100% proof that the account has either been sold or hacked.

That is not a valid assumption to make, changing of email addresses of their account does not necessarily mean they have sold the account to someone, it only means that they have changed their email. One of the reasons I think is of course for security purposes and confidentiality of their original email address. For instance marlboroza didn't even changed his password when he has changed his email address. Also Bitcointalk giving you the ability to change your email means that you are allowed to do so.

[suchmoon]

So all of you have pussied out? none of you is talking about Vod's tag on me. because 9 from 10 are just pussies in this forum. I call people like you cowards, when you see somebody powerful(in your own opinion) is doing shit to others you would do more shit to others just to make that somebody happy, to make that somebody someday tag you with some green trust and say that "good guy" "good forum member" "this member fights against spam and scam".

Are you getting carried away again?

Guys I'm begging you, ask Vod to un-tag me. I only got a hold over seclog recently, so I got carried away.

See that's why you're fundamentally untrustworthy. Nobody knows when you're gonna fly off the handle again.

[digaran]

So all of you have pussied out? none of you is talking about Vod's tag on me. because 9 from 10 are just pussies in this forum.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason none of us are talking about Vod's tag is because we all agree with him that you are a scammer, spammer and troll?

Look who is talking, somebody with multiple accounts cheating in signature campaigns, somebody who thinks that people are stupid and can't see him/her for what he/she really is.

You can't find: scammer in any of my ratings left on my profile by DT members. Vod is a trust abuser and has left me a negative trust in retaliation, if you want to be his little bitch, be my guest and stay as his little cute bitch.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Somebody with multiple accounts

Do you have a single shred of evidence?

somebody who thinks that people are stupid

No, I just think you are stupid.

You can't find: scammer in any of my ratings left on my profile by DT members.

Just because they don't use the word scammer, doesn't mean they don't think you are one. I'm not surprised you are unable to read between the lines since you can't comprehend basic facts.