Vod - Trust Abuse - Lies - Intimidation

[yogg]

Worded the way you have asked the question, BitcoinTalk > OGNasty, every single time. I have no loyalty to that man, I don't know him, I just see something that we all agree is wrong, DOXING, and it warrants negative trust - in my opinion, at least temporarily.

It is not about loyalty, simply about numbers. Please don't mix everything up as the effect of your actions was to directly discredit Vod.

I am saying that your actions put more people at risk of getting scammed, than save people from being doxxed.
There is an incoherence with you reply, as you defend a single man to the detriment of the rest of naive newbies and users.
Maybe you failed to see the implications of your actions ? Which is also understandable.

Anyways, when a next moon comes, how many people will be safer after they read Vod's stickies ? How many more people will Vod dox ?
How will people feel after reading a sticky with a red box saying that the community believe the OP is a scammer ?

Switch the roles, I think you'd still be wrong. (Assuming the roles, and all the past actions are switched as well).

[1715630232]

1715630232

[1715630232]

1715630232

[1715630232]

1715630232

[bill gator]

Vod didn't indicate anything that was not already indicated, thus including that is only relevant if you want to exagarrate what happened. Now had Og's information been relatively private, and Vod had done this that would have been a different story.

Define "relatively private".
The way you're wording this makes it sound like Vod mentioning there being 500 BTC involved was irrelevant to the magnitude of malicious intent being expressed.

Let's keep it simple, do you believe it's reasonable to think there is someone that has OG's information, or a new piece of OG's information that they didn't have prior to the DOX release?
Let's assume you're going to be honest and say "yes, of course someone downloaded his information that was too clueless to otherwise find it."
Do you think anybody that saved his information from that post has good intentions?

The biggest claim against me is "exaggeration", so let's boil it down to the most reductionist level we can. How should this event be viewed?

...

Your argument is that Vod has done good, therefore Vod can do evil.
I've seen this argument used to defend Lauda in the past; I don't buy it.

[Quickseller]

Worded the way you have asked the question, BitcoinTalk > OGNasty, every single time. I have no loyalty to that man, I don't know him, I just see something that we all agree is wrong, DOXING, and it warrants negative trust - in my opinion, at least temporarily.

It is not about loyalty, simply about numbers. Please don't mix everything up as the effect of your actions was to directly discredit Vod.

I am saying that your actions put more people at risk of getting scammed, than save people from being doxxed.
There is an incoherence with you reply, as you defend a single man to the detriment of the rest of naive newbies and users.

When a next moon comes, how many people will be safer after they read Vod's stickies ? How many more people will Vod dox ?
How will people feel after reading a sticky with a red box saying that the community believe the OP is a scammer ?

Switch the roles, you'd still be wrong. (Assuming the roles, and all the past actions are switched as well).

That is nonsense. Vods "contributions" do not give him an excuse to act this way. If anything he should be held to a higher standard because others will look to him for how to behave because of his standing. 

[Lauda]

Define "relatively private".

Not accesible by public means, e.g. only certain people (say collectors) have it. This is not the case with Og, never was.

The way you're wording this makes it sound like Vod mentioning there being 500 BTC involved was irrelevant to the magnitude of malicious intent being expressed.

I frankly couldn't care less whether he mentioned it or not. If someone had any intentions with those details prior to knowing about the funds, Vod maybe saved them a couple minutes of reading.

Let's keep it simple, do you believe it's reasonable to think there is someone that has OG's information, or a new piece of OG's information that they didn't have prior to the DOX release?
Let's assume you're going to be honest and say "yes, of course someone downloaded his information that was too clueless to otherwise find it."
Do you think anybody that saved his information from that post has good intentions?

Yes. No, and it doesn't matter. People with real bad intentions didn't need Vod's post, and even with the post they're would want to validate the information (the methodology would be very similar to if they were searching for it to begin with).

The biggest claim against me is "exaggeration", so let's boil it down to the most reductionist level we can. How should this event be viewed?

Rewrite or remove the rating would be a starter. Moronbozo laid out the issue nicely, and don't even get me started on rmc. He's the Chumlee of this forum. If I were to call you an inconsistent hypocrite, he would be the inventor of hypocrisy. Note: I didn't even start.

[bill gator]

It is not about loyalty, simply about numbers

That's exactly what I said.

There is an incoherence with you reply, as you defend a single man to the detriment of the rest of naive newbies and users.

Without Vod, we are lost? It sounds like you're the one that has conflicting loyalty.

How will people feel after reading a sticky with a red box saying that the community believe the OP is a scammer ?

They would not be the first trusted, or staff member to fall from grace.

Switch the roles, I think you'd still be wrong.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Vod did not release anything.

[yogg]

I agree as we should all be seeking higher standards. Also, I do not believe that the said "higher standard" is an excuse to act that way.
Honestly, I believe that mistakes happens and that Vod had a momentarily lack of clarity. It happens to everybody, even the bests.

Has it happened already in the past ? Not as far as I can tell.
The situation will also be very different if it happens that Vod doxes another member again in the future.

I still believe Vod brings more good than bad to the forum.

Without Vod, we are lost? It sounds like you're the one that has conflicting loyalty.

Is this what I said ? Please can you point me to where I said this ?
This is not what I was saying. I was saying that Vod's actions were more beneficial overall for bitcoin and the community, and that making a mistake is not a reason for removing it all.

Please do not interpret my words. I am loyal only to myself and my sense of morality.

[Lauda]

Honestly, I believe that mistakes happens and that Vod had a momentarily lack of clarity. It happens to everybody, even the bests.

Removing it rather quickly was appropriate. It was an acceptable mistake, the DOXX was unecessary (fact being that everyone can find it anyways makes it acceptable). I'm suprised that some rando-pajeet managed to create so much trouble. This escalated several times over.

[bill gator]

Not accesible by public means

That's a more slippery slope than meriting based on exclusively effort.

I frankly couldn't care less whether he mentioned it or not.

That's sort of the problem, champ!

Vod maybe saved them a couple minutes of reading.

Saving a criminal that wants to do one of our members harm some time. How is that a neutral action?

Yes. No, and it doesn't matter.

So close, it's just that the "it doesn't matter" part kind of kills it.
You do not know the investigative capabilities or routines of whoever downloaded and saved that information.
Admitting that the information is now in the hands of more people, none of which have good-intentions confuses me how you can come to a conclusion like I'm exaggerating.

Rewrite or remove the rating would be a starter.

It's definitely not being removed. If I shortened it down to just "Posted DOX" - do all of your complaints about my involvement in the situation disappear (the complaints that are able to be solved, moving forward, anyways)? That's an honest question, rather than an offer, but I do take everything said into consideration when I do anything around here.

I disagree that they laid it out nicely, they seem to have pushed the issue closer to a "who cares?", which isn't appropriate.

fact being that everyone can find it anyways makes it acceptable

Now you're the one exaggerating.

[OgNasty]

I hope the fact I never resorted to doxxing TMAN or owlcatz despite the awful things they've said about me over the years is in itself a little more commendable now.  

[bill gator]

Is this what I said ? Please can you point me to where I said this ?
This is not what I was saying. I was saying that Vod's actions were more beneficial overall for bitcoin and the community, and that making a mistake is not a reason for removing it all.

I asked you a question in return, I did not claim "yogg said..." You certainly implied it though, yes.


You're reminding me of a good Chappelle joke.

Chappelle continued: "So he rapes them. I know, I know! That's the dilemma for the audience because he rapes, but he saves a lot of lives. And he saves way more than he rapes, and he only rapes to save. But he does rape."

_{Source : https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/03/146581/dave-chappelle-netflix-standup-special-rape-joke}

[yogg]

I've been told Vod has a long history of doxxing people by forum administration.  It's been a problem for a long time but somehow he has been flying under the radar.  I didn't know this either until recently.

Well, if this is true, this is another issue.
Can someone confirm this ? I sincerely doubt Cyrus and/or Theymos will confirm or deny.
Until then, I am very sorry but I haven't witnessed that and you are the first telling me this.

I asked you a question in return, I did not claim "yogg said..." You certainly implied it though, yes.

Please do not interpret my words.

Yes, you are certainly in my head, reading my thoughts.  
I don't need to imply stuff, I just say it.

Chappelle continued: "So he rapes them. I know, I know! That's the dilemma for the audience because he rapes, but he saves a lot of lives. And he saves way more than he rapes, and he only rapes to save. But he does rape."

_{Source : https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/03/146581/dave-chappelle-netflix-standup-special-rape-joke}

I wasn't aware that I played a role in a netflix serie

[OgNasty]

Joey, what are you going to do if windows (or other things) in your house start breaking in the middle of the night?  How are you going to afford to fix them?  Will you have to move to a rent controlled complex where your activities won't be allowed?
...

Our house is insured.

I'm sure you have deductibles on your insurance policy.    $500 out of your pocket for every incident.

Go ahead and go to the police.  Do you think they will ask why it's happening?  Eventually they are going to find out that you are an active fraudster and charge YOU.

I don't think it's going to stop windows from breaking in your house in the wee hours of the morning.    

He's even encouraged people to harm users here by breaking their windows in the night until their insurance deductibles bankrupt them.  He seems fixated on using other people's homes as a way to target them.

[bill gator]

Yes, you are certainly in my head, reading my thoughts.  
I don't need to imply stuff, I just say it.

You do realize that "intention" and "implication" are different words, right?
I'm not trying to tell you what you meant with your words, and it is quite off-putting how combative you are being when I am doing everything I can to understand what you're typing and respond reasonably.
All I was saying is how it was heard.

Extrapolating the things you say results in the conclusions I have responded to.

Within 24-hours of removing Vod from my trust-list and leaving them a negative feedback for DOXing another member I have went from 9-inclusions to -1 inclusions and being off DT.
This has happened to multiple people that have acted appropriately in response to the situation.

I've seen all I need to see, to know this isn't going to fix itself.

[yogg]

How you act now that you know is behavior you can feel sorry or proud of.

Well, thank you for informing us of this.

Maybe someone else has links to all of Vod's dox attempts on community members here?  This is most certainly an issue we as a community need to put a stop to.

If this is the case, it is not to be taken lightly.
But, as you first said that forum administration told you this, they have probably noticed it over and over, enough times to tell you.
If this is the case maybe we'll have some compelling elements brought up by some other members but I can't understand how it was allowed to happen for that long ?

You do realize that "intention" and "implication" are different words, right?

They both starts with an "i" and end with an "n" but the letters in the middle do change. So .. my deduction is that these words are different.
Wait ... Maybe I know their meaning as well ?
Intention : "Bob is in a room with a gold ingot. Bob wants to take the gold for himself but does nothing."
Implication : "Bob is in a room. There is gold on a table. Bob left and gold disappeared. Bob is a thief."

I maybe pass the test, but I still fail to see why you bring that up ?  

Extrapolating the things you say results in the conclusions I have responded to.

Don't extrapolate then. It only leads to more confusion. I told you to not interpret my words. (not give them another, conceived, meaning)
I can't second degree. If you are unsure of what I meant, please ask for clarification.

All I was saying is how it was heard.

No.
All you are saying is how you heard it.
Or maybe I missed something else and now you speak on behalf of the community ?

I've seen all I need to see, to know this isn't going to fix itself.

The forum fixes itself very efficiently.

[suchmoon]

Switch the roles, if OG released Vod's DOX, OG would have a negative feedback from me.

LOL yeah... what other users have you actually negged for doxing?

[TECSHARE]

Switch the roles, if OG released Vod's DOX, OG would have a negative feedback from me.

LOL yeah... what other users have you actually negged for doxing?

Anyone noticing the repeating pattern of how certain people are trying to turn this in to a a discussion of anything and everything except for Vod's inexcusable serial abusive behavior?

[suchmoon]

Switch the roles, if OG released Vod's DOX, OG would have a negative feedback from me.

LOL yeah... what other users have you actually negged for doxing?

Anyone noticing the repeating pattern of how certain people are trying to turn this in to a a discussion of anything and everything except for Vod's inexcusable serial abusive behavior?

You can still discuss Vod's behavior but for some reason you're choosing to bitch about me not doing what you want. I happen to think that massive hypocrisy, which you're not a stranger to, is a big part of this whole shitshow. None of you keyboard warriors are concerned about doxing at all, it's just a convenient topic to latch on.

[TECSHARE]

You can still discuss Vod's behavior but for some reason you're choosing to bitch about me not doing what you want. I happen to think that massive hypocrisy, which you're not a stranger to, is a big part of this whole shitshow. None of you keyboard warriors are concerned about doxing at all, it's just a convenient topic to latch on.

I never said you were stopping me, I was just pointing out the fact that certain people here are trying to make this thread about everything but his inexcusable behavior. Convenient to latch on toward what end? What coveted prize do I get for pointing out Vod's pattern of years of serial abuse of this user base along with the community's excusing of it EVERY TIME? It is always the same thing, he pretends to repent, makes some minor concession after the damage is already done, everyone says the same brown nosing lines about how we should forgive and forget and "he contributes a lot", then he lays low for a few months and repeats the same pattern of malicious behavior again and again and again.

[Vod]

I've been told Vod has a long history of doxxing people by forum administration.

Well, if this is true, this is another issue.

It's not.  

As made up as the incorporation name in his paypal info for ten years.  Check it out.

Not sure why Theymos lets him lie like this, but I guess he has made his choice between OG and I.  Scamming brings in the coin - truth doesn't.  

[Lauda]

Not accesible by public means

That's a more slippery slope than meriting based on exclusively effort.

It's my definition, not a slippery slope.

Vod maybe saved them a couple minutes of reading.

Saving a criminal that wants to do one of our members harm some time. How is that a neutral action?

Intentional vs. unintentional. No malice was intended, thus it doesn't matter.

If I shortened it down to just "Posted DOX" - do all of your complaints about my involvement in the situation disappear (the complaints that are able to be solved, moving forward, anyways)? T

No.

fact being that everyone can find it anyways makes it acceptable

Now you're the one exaggerating.

Proper observation. Whoever can't find it, shouldn't be in this crypto-forum for their own safety. That's how tech-easy that challenge is, maybe a 2 on a 1-10 scale.

None of you keyboard warriors are concerned about doxing at all, it's just a convenient topic to latch on.

Correct, that's why I excluded all of them. Massive hypocrisy, zero actual care about general doxxing. Maybe they do care about doxxing depending on who the victim is.
I called this yesterday as a likely outcome of the bullshit that you're pursuing, now I'm just waiting for Vod's counterpart. This is why you should de-escalate immediately, especially when master thermos has recommended that it be done.