Vod is a liar & extortionist. Get him out of DT!

[marlboroza]

I'm still trying to figure out what Vod meant by saying, "I have a lot more to lose than you do by exposing someone" and then linking to the below site.

Is your real life identity known?

I have a lot more to lose than you do by exposing someone.

EXAMPLE:  
https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/****

Context is important here.
Redacted - link.

[1713584565]

1713584565

[1713584565]

1713584565

[eddie13]

I don't know if this is aimed at me in any way

Nah.. I have been watching this since I was one of the first ones to alert about this IRS shit in the first place, when the dox happened, and have seen a lot of otherwise good users defend Vod and attack OG in this situation..

Though I really don't understand why you think this..

Og on the other hand is a filthy liar

Vod being a liar is without question though, right here is all you need to see that as clear as day..


In reference to this statement by theymos, on the topic of Vod doxing OG and reporting him to the IRS..

I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.

It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. (<""fine users") Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.

Which is very obviously addressing the behavoir of Vod himself, NOT OGNasty, as Vod's negative trust rating falsely implies..  

That is a lie, by Vod, in a trust rating at that, and is still there to this day!!
How the fuck is that OK with anyone?

"which is a sure sign that OGNasty is untrustworthy" <Vod's trust rating
theymos was talking about Vod, not OGNasty..

Will any of you even try to tell Vod to atleast fix his blatantly untrue negative trust rating?

Also I have some doubts about breaking down doors for tax audit

In this situation they would want his computers un-tampered with, no destruction of evidence, so I could totally see them barging in to grab whatever evidence they want.. They would also know their are very large amounts of value at stake here, giving them all the more incentive to snatch it live..

Remember what they did to DPR? They even busted him in a way where they made sure his laptop didn't get shut so it would encrypt..

Here's my take on this. I pay my taxes. Those who don't pay are assholes because guess what - they're not reimbursing me personally for the shit they use

Here is my take on this..

- It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all

I agree with theymos on this subject..

you are a big fish.   You are "set for life" according to you

Vod reaffirming the fact that OGNasty is a high value target for thieves, as well as a government..

[suchmoon]

Though I really don't understand why you think this..

Og on the other hand is a filthy liar

Might be because of all the lying, about eoakland, minifrij, owlcatz, ibminer, and I'm sure I'm forgetting about half-dozen other instances of obvious blatant lies.

Which is very obviously addressing the behavoir of Vod himself, NOT OGNasty, as Vod's negative trust rating falsely implies..  

That is a lie, by Vod, in a trust rating at that, and is still there to this day!!
How the fuck is that OK with anyone?

Vod posted this in response to Og twisting the same statement to his benefit. I don't agree with either action and would prefer if they looked at the other part of theymos' statement: "it'd be best to forgive".

Remember what they did to DPR? They even busted him in a way where they made sure his laptop didn't get shut so it would encrypt..

That was a bit more than tax audit, wasn't it?

[OgNasty]

Vod being a liar is without question though, right here is all you need to see that as clear as day..

Indeed it isn't a question of who you believe.  It's a question of if you want to look the other way regarding Vod's lies and attack his target or do the right thing.  A shame that people like suchmoon and marlboroza can't seem to ever end up on the right side of these disputes.  Look at the other troll minifrij even jumping in to leave some false feedback.  That's how far this circle of con artists goes to protect each other.  I ask a question and get a negative trust rating.  I don't think this is what theymos had in mind when he wanted to improve the trust system.

Might be because of all the lying, about eoakland, minifrij, owlcatz, ibminer, and I'm sure I'm forgetting about half-dozen other instances of obvious blatant lies.

I haven't lied about anything.  I asked ibminer a question he responded to and we moved forward.  You shouldn't fear people seeking clarity.

I'm still trying to figure out what Vod meant by saying, "I have a lot more to lose than you do by exposing someone" and then linking to the below site.

Is your real life identity known?

I have a lot more to lose than you do by exposing someone.

EXAMPLE:   
https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/martin-lawrence/select-stateprovince/martin-lawrence-vodmlawrence-pedo-bitcoin-st-albert-edmonton-st-albert-alberta-1158255

Context is important here.

Agreed.  Vod, can you provide us some context? 

[suchmoon]

Might be because of all the lying, about eoakland, minifrij, owlcatz, ibminer, and I'm sure I'm forgetting about half-dozen other instances of obvious blatant lies.

I haven't lied about anything.  I asked ibminer a question he responded to and we moved forward.  You shouldn't fear people seeking clarity.

Did eoakland prove to you that he didn't buy the account? Did you remove your false negative trust after that?

You seem to fear people exposing your lies. Such masterful use of retaliatory trust ratings.

[eddie13]

Vod posted this in response to Og twisting the same statement to his benefit.

But the statement is 100% to OGNasty's benefit... So their is no twist..

I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.

It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.

[suchmoon]

Vod posted this in response to Og twisting the same statement to his benefit.

But the statement is 100% to OGNasty's benefit... So their is no twist..

Sorry. "Cherry-picking" would have been more apt. I think the context of that whole episode was deescalation but you know... when the only tool one has is a hammer then every quote looks like a cherry.

[Vod]

Eddie, my trust feedback is technically correct, it just twists the intention of the quote.

I left my feedback because of his, which is also technically correct, but twists the intention.

Ask your buddy to reword his, and I'll reword mine. 

But he still cheating the government out of tens of thousands of dollars by not declaring his business income and not charging sales tax. 

[marlboroza]

A shame that people like suchmoon and marlboroza can't seem to ever end up on the right side of these disputes.  Look at the other troll minifrij even jumping in to leave some false feedback.  That's how far this circle of con artists goes to protect each other.

But you are the one who keeps bumping this thread over and over again! You say something and people ask you something! And what was that you were saying about theymos suchmoon advertising illegal money laundering service, I didn't quite understand that post? Explain it to troll and member of circle of con artists!

Vod posted this in response to Og twisting the same statement to his benefit.

But the statement is 100% to OGNasty's benefit... So their is no twist..

I think the context of that whole episode was deescalation

It seems so:

I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.

It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.

[owlcatz]

I haven't lied about anything.  

Then reply here please, and be fucking honest for once.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.0

[OgNasty]

But he still cheating the government out of tens of thousands of dollars by not declaring his business income and not charging sales tax.  

Retailers are responsible for the sales tax.  You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my income taxes.

But you are the one who keeps bumping this thread over and over again!

Vod claimed I offered him NastyFans seats to sponsor his website.  I say he is a liar.  Your only comment on this thread needs to be telling Vod to post the quote or admit to lying.

Then reply here please, and be fucking honest for once.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.0

Done.

[eddie13]

Eddie, my trust feedback is technically correct, it just twists the intention of the quote.

No man.. That shit ain't close to true.. As I just thoroughly demonstrated..

I left my feedback because of his, which is also technically correct, but twists the intention.

"Vod began spreading lies about my taxes of which he has no knowledge, in order to try and "negotiate a settlement" which is how he publicly disguised his extortion attempt. When I refused to give in to his extortion disguised as a "settlement" on behalf of the IRS, Vod dedicated massive amounts of his time to spreading lies about my actions. Behavior like this shouldn't be tolerated in this community. Screenshot in the event he deletes his post: https://i.imgur.com/B7nkVi4.png"


Lets break this down and see if we can find any untruths.. Feel free to help me out...

"Vod began spreading lies about my taxes of which he has no knowledge"
Yeah, you have no idea what he pays and what he doesn't..

"in order to try and "negotiate a settlement" which is how he publicly disguised his extortion attempt. When I refused to give in to his extortion disguised as a "settlement" on behalf of the IRS"
You wanted him to post his tax proofs on the basis that one of you would leave the forum for good depending on what he did or did not pay.. He refused to post any proofs of his taxes, which he had no obligation to do.. He refused your offer..
Maybe he would rather maintain his financial privacy than give a fuck about proving something on the internet??

"Vod dedicated massive amounts of his time to spreading lies about my actions."
True..

"Behavior like this shouldn't be tolerated in this community."
Well, I think it should be tolerated, but recognized for what it is, which is not lately the behavior befitting a good role model of the community..


The 2 opposing negative ratings are on 2 entirely different levels of truthfulness..
His may include some opinion and maybe shouldn't use the word "extortion", while yours selfadmittedly is 100% untruthful manipulation intended to mislead the casual observer, and just place some red in retaliation..


I've told you before that I like that you do a lot of good things around here, and respect that you are a true OG user, but these are not the actions of someone I would look up to as a good role model.. I want to continue to see you do good things but stop this stupid shit..
A good example to lead by would be to hold yourself to the highest of standards no matter the situation and always do the right thing no matter if you stand to gain or lose by doing so, and you are sadly falling far short of that benchmark.

Trust ratings are not pawns in a game of chess..
Involving the government to investigate something you cannot, and get rid of someone that you cannot, over a personal quarrel, is not fair game, and could lead to disastrous consequences far in excess of some internet pissing contest..

You didn't really report him to the IRS did you? I don't think you did..


Get some of my respect back by fixing your trust rating..
Make it something 100% true..
Even if you make it red for an opinion such as "I hate him!!", that would be better..

[Vod]

Sorry Eddie, but your entire post is based on a quote from a habitual liar...

If you want to be less biased, we can create a new thread on MY extortion attempt on OG.   

[minifrij]

Look at the other troll minifrij even jumping in to leave some false feedback.

ok boomer

[eddie13]

Sorry Eddie, but your entire post is based on a quote from a habitual liar...

If you want to be less biased, we can create a new thread on MY extortion attempt on OG.  

I try...  
It's like playing chess with a pigeon..

I JUST posted that I didn't like the "extortion" wording, but it was an ultimatum that he didn't have to accept, and declined..


It's not like I have a crush on OGNasty, it's just that he seems to be quite an honorable guy to me, even possibly meticulous in his actions, and I like that..
theymos also trusts and likes OGNasty very much, and I trust theymos above all, not just because he is a hotshot in Bitcoin, but I find myself very politically and philosophically aligned with theymos and I like how he thinks along those lines.. The character that Satoshi Nakamoto himself took notice and full advantage of..


But, the fact that so many otherwise "fine users" have such a problem with OGN DOES have me questioning and curious as to why..
I have seen some examples provided against OGNasty and I have to say that so far they are piss poor, sorry..

OGNasty's "Nastyfans" is hobby tier at best and I'm not surprised people didn't get rich investing BTC into mining contracts, buying mining with BTC has almost always been proven in history to be a poor but attractive investment VS just holding BTC.. You have to admit that it is one of the least scammy mining contract investments ever in history though, lol.. Out of all the get rich quick crazy mining contract scams we have seen, Jesus..
If OG was a scammer how much do you figure he could have scammed with the mining thing?

That also was going on before all of the IPO/ICO scam investment stuff, even well before the easy ETH tokens, and therefore all the regulation stuff, so I don't fault him for winging it and not having a team of lawyers on it since its beginning..

Who on this forum has 100% faithfully handled more customer funds than OGNasty?
Maybe the exchanges, casinos, and mixers, but as far as a 1 man freelancer OG is wayy up there, and much less scammy than many who have or do hold more..

I have an eye open for actual problems with the character of OGNasty, but so far nada..
If you do have some serious damning stuff on OGNasty please do let me know though because I am all ears.. Just choose your preferred forum and make sure I see it please because I do not like to be mistaken, especially when risk is possibly involved..

All I have seen is simply weak sauce..

[marlboroza]

Vod claimed I offered him NastyFans seats to sponsor his website.  I say he is a liar.  Your only comment on this thread needs to be telling Vod to post the quote or admit to lying.

Ok, master! Vod, I am telling you: post the quote!

Now, your turn:

And what was that you were saying about theymos suchmoon advertising illegal money laundering service, I didn't quite understand that post? Explain it to troll and member of circle of con artists!

[eddie13]

Look at the other troll minifrij even jumping in to leave some false feedback.

ok boomer

Arg, their is a new fresh meme to rebute that but I can't find it right now.. Something about "But the boomers actually do have all the money"..
But..



At worst that should read more like "Implying that I a user stole a miner in a possible character assassination attempt during a disagreement"

Your reference does not accuse, at worst it implies, and he basically agreed that it probably wasn't you him..

[suchmoon]

Your reference does not accuse, at worst it implies, and he basically agreed that it probably wasn't you..

Different user (ibminer).

And again, the context matters very much. ibminer makes fun of Og's mining coin thingy or whatever it is. Og posts an accusation with a question mark. Then deletes it. Then refuses to acknowledge it ever existed. Then finally... "you shouldn't fear people seeking clarity".

You'll say "weak sauce" but it's a constant pattern with Og and these thinly veiled accusations. He used to post red trust with that "weak sauce" when he was in DT and his victims were not. Thankfully that doesn't quite work these days.

[eddie13]

Your reference does not accuse, at worst it implies, and he basically agreed that it probably wasn't you..

Different user (ibminer).

Good catch, yeah I slipped..
I fix/edited it with S
I don't mind admitting my mistakes when I make them..

And again, the context matters very much. ibminer makes fun of Og's mining coin thingy or whatever it is. Og posts an accusation with a question mark. Then deletes it. Then refuses to acknowledge it ever existed. Then finally... "you shouldn't fear people seeking clarity".

So he did accuse, then deleted it?
Do you think LoyceV's glowing post logger bot caught it? LoyceV?
I don't know how to work that thing.. Professional witness to the stand?

"weak sauce"

Yeah, it's "weak sauce" untill I see it..
I trust you to not lie to me but I don't even really understand what you mean about some accusation with a "?"..
I believe he edited his post a lot because I do too.. I might edit my posts 5 times in the first minute or so after hitting posts the first time, heh..
Sticky spacebars n such..

He used to post red trust with that "weak sauce" when he was in DT and his victims were not. Thankfully that doesn't quite work these days.

True, he may have been a bit heavy handed back then against some he personally didn't trust/like but things were stricter back then and with a bit different code of conduct..
DT1s and DT2s get away with a lot today they wouldn't have back then.. Now it's a lot of "I stopped so many scams and spam I deserve to get away with xxx" (virtue signaling), so no consequences for bad actions for anyone with half a decent reputation.. If you leave a whole lot of correct feedback then your feedback is worth more than booting you for whatever stupid shit you did..
(Not "you" but just like in general, I'm bad at the "you" thing)
Back then saying anything false would get someone red trust.. Their are more checks and balances these days but most up-and-coomers are more liberal so there have the standards gone..

[suchmoon]

So he did accuse, then deleted it?
Do you think LoyceV's glowing post logger bot caught it? LoyceV?
I don't know how to work that thing.. Professional witness to the stand?

Not sure what you're asking - the edited-out part was quoted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136576.msg53095255#msg53095255

If you're looking for OgNasty saying "ibminer stole a miner" - no, of course he didn't say THAT. But this is also not true by any reasonable interpretation of "moving forward":

I asked ibminer a question he responded to and we moved forward.  

"Sorry, my mistake" would be moving forward. Deleting the "question" and then pretending that I'm the one suspecting ibminer... well, that's classic Og move.

Yeah, it's "weak sauce" untill I see it..
I trust you to not lie to me but I don't even really understand what you mean about some accusation with a "?"..
I believe he edited his post a lot because I do too.. I might edit my posts 5 times in the first minute or so after hitting posts the first time, heh..
Sticky spacebars n such..

Would you believe a sticky spacebar made me post this:

eddie13, are you the guy who stole Og's miner and fucked his goat? Don't fault me for seeking some clarity here. I'll delete this if you try asking about it.

I mean, yeah shit happens, but how do you make up something completely stupidly false out of the blue like that? Tends to happen with OgNasty a lot. User posts in his thread - tag as a sold account, user proves it's not sold - make up a litany of other crimes (eoakland). User points out an ambiguity in Og's post - tag him for an accusation, and for "hiding" behind a publicly known alt (minifrij). Just scraping the surface here. He's not tagging anymore for that kind of shit but hasn't removed the old frivolous tags either.

He used to post red trust with that "weak sauce" when he was in DT and his victims were not. Thankfully that doesn't quite work these days.

True, he may have been a bit heavy handed back then against some he personally didn't trust/like but things were stricter back then and with a bit different code of conduct..
DT1s and DT2s get away with a lot today they wouldn't have back then.. Now it's a lot of "I stopped so many scams and spam I deserve to get away with xxx" (virtue signaling), so no consequences for bad actions for anyone with half a decent reputation.. If you leave a whole lot of correct feedback then your feedback is worth more than booting you for whatever stupid shit you did..
(Not "you" but just like in general, I'm bad at the "you" thing)
Back then saying anything false would get someone red trust.. Their are more checks and balances these days but most up-and-coomers are more liberal so there have the standards gone..

Well, see above. There was nothing at all false or suspicious deserving red trust in some of those disputes. Although if I wanted I'm pretty sure I could find an excuse or two for every instance of questionable judgement by OgNasty, and I probably did back in the day when I still trusted him, but at some point you gotta admit it's not just coincidences anymore.