Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules

[TECSHARE]

I am reposting this here because it was originally posted in Armis's thread, but he conveniently felt it was time to lock it to prevent any response from anyone. Original thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all


Quote from: BadBear on November 08, 2014, 10:38:33 AM
Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network.  
In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change."

Funny how users such as VOD (I don't have a problem with you BTW) are on your trust list and him handing out negative trust like candy is ok, and his drunken mistakes are forgiven, but one incident after 3 years of impeccable activity here and I am out, and the people who trusted me are coerced into removing me under threat of removal themselves. This was just an excuse to make an example out of some one so you can keep forgiving your cronies for real abuse and make a scapegoat out of someone who has been an honest and dedicated user of Bitcoin and the forums. You claim that I was wrong and I refused to see that, I admitted what I was wrong about, putting in a BTC value when there was none. I corrected that.

What ensued after was corersion against me and others in an attempt to force me to change my trust rating. ARMIS was in fact only there to harass me in my single outlet for trading on the forum. He initiated this conflict. He claims he deleted his posts but he only deleted one then began posting again. He deleted all his posts after I left him a trust rating to make it look like I was overreacting and that he actually stopped posting. If you read my quotes of him you can see he continued. He also deleted several taunting insulting posts from his own thread again to make himself appear like a victim in this and not a perpetrator. He has since them posted in at least 5 of my other marketplace ops accusing me of being "untrustworthy" in an attempt to slander me for giving him negative trust. Also him changing his signature to slander me also was clearly another escalation as well.

No one is acknowledging here the fact that he began this and escalated it at every point of the way. This is why I am being "stubborn", because I admitted to the mistakes I made, but that wasn't enough you had to punish me punitively for defending myself when the moderators refused to do so even when repeatedly requested. I didn't just attack this user for no reason. He was actively slandering me in my marketplace ops directly inhibiting my ability to trade in the only section I am permitted to. He has the freedom to criticize me everywhere on the forum. He also believes he also has the right to harass me and interfere with my marketplace posts dedicated exclusively to trading for his own personal entertainment.

This wasn't me trying to "blackmail" or oppress this user in some way. All I was demanding was to be restored to my original state BEFORE he started this conflict with me. I never demanded he be silenced or be unable to slander me anywhere else on the forum he likes. He is taking my ability to speak from me then claiming I am doing the same to him because I took action against him. My feedback was legitimate once corrected. I pointed out his harassment, and that is what it was for. Badbear for example accuses me of leaving negative trust frivolously and that I am some how abusing it for using it like it was intended, to warn others of problematic users, yet his trust list contains people who use the feedback system in EXACTLY the same way, and he excuses it. I am accused of participating in an "old boys club" while the real old buys club uses me as a convenient scapegoat so they can further excuse the abuses of their buddies.

I have seen the moderators and staff here have whole threads dedicated to harassing a minor (atlas), for no other reason than they found him annoying. I pointed out that it was a bit excessive and my post was removed. I then posted that anyone's posts not critical of atlas were being deleted so they banned me. You people have no right to talk to me about being aggressive and abusing users. It is a daily activity for staff here. Meanwhile this troll comes along and manipulates the situation and cries like he is being oppressed and the staff lick it up because it is a easy way to roll out and justify trust upgrades and cover for the actual abusers of the trust system, their buddies. I imagine the next step will be that you will retroactively claim my feedback is now invalid because I have other options with the updates. That's a convenient backdoor way for punitive action then forcing me to remove my feedback anyway because you changed the rules after it was left Wink  

You are always talking about how you don't moderate feedback, but clearly you do, only thru coercion and threats of trust removal. This isn't a forum trust network. It is the Theymos trust network, and he demands everyone in his harem does what he decides. There is no posting of clear rules for trust ratings, and even if there were they are being selectively enforced to cover for the ACTUAL repeated abuse of trust from people in his trust list which he conveniently seems to not see. Then I come along and make a single infraction of these unwritten rules, correct the mistake in posting the trust, but refuse to submit to their threats for removing it completely because Armis instigated this and refuses to reciprocate with removing his slander of me and I am punitively punished. Not only by being removed by from the trust but because Armis still has slanderous posts in my marketplace threads regardless of how many times he claims he deleted them. He had no intent of leaving me to trade in peace, or to even engage in trading activity. If you actually read the posts of his I quoted you can see he is simply there to entertain himself at the expense of my ability to trade.

 I can't just take my existing years old threads with tons of good customer feedback, answers to questions, and other valuable content and make it self moderated, otherwise I would and none of this would have happened to begin with. My only option within the forum architecture left was either to leave a negative rating, or simply suffer damage of my ability to trade and speak freely here without being drown out by a 4chan like atmosphere.

The marketplace is so overrun with trolling I can't even sell items at cost without people claiming I am being unfair just as pretext to start an argument and make more accusations. This is exactly what Armis was doing to me, and I told him repeatedly to leave my thread and he refused. He CLAIMS he deleted his posts, but he deleted only his first post, then jumped right back in to start harassing again when others joined in emboldened by his first post. I attempted reports to moderators many times but all of my requests for assistance were ignored. He later deleted his other posts in my now closed thread (now reopened as a self moderated thread) after I left him negative feedback to try to appear reconciliatory and victimized after he had repercussions from me.

If trusted users aren't free to leave trust ratings that they decide on what is the point of the trust network? Also if the point of the trust network is to help direct people to honest traders, what is the point of removing me from the trust if I have been a model of a legitimate trader here? You say I was abusing the system for ONE trust rating left when users regularly hand out DOZENS here, even from users on the default trust list, for nothing more than a guess or because they were annoyed. All you are doing is EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Blackmailing me into doing and saying what you want.



Second post:



"Quote from: deluxeCITY on November 09, 2014, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: TECSHARE on November 09, 2014, 11:48:30 AM
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust.

Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics.

Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games)"



So all of these ratings I am listing below were only for scams? It doesn't look like that to me.

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference  
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference  
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000      
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference  
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Also there are dozens of negative trust left on nothing more than a hunch that the user is a scammer on top of the clearly non scam related posts above. People on the default trust REGULARLY "abuse" the trust just like the staff have claimed I have, and some how I am supposed to understand this is selectively enforced and some are more equal than others.

Those "overpriced" goods were sold AT COST. Just because it is available somewhere else on the net for less doesn't make my goods "overpriced" or "unfair". If it is really that unfair who the hell would buy it to begin with? If no one would by my product to begin with because it is so unfairly priced, what is the point of warning people about it? No one here considered that someone might be willing to pay COST for a product for the reassurance of knowing THEY WONT GET ROBBED. He had no justification for being in my threads. He was there solely for trolling, and trolls don't give a shit how many logical arguments you make, that doesn't make them go away.

I wasn't just "feeling" like he was harassing me, it is a FACT that is what he was doing, and all I demanded in this process was he restore me to my original state before he started harassing me. Since that is impossible now he has no chance in hell of getting my cooperation and he will be stuck with his negative feedback. I made an offer to that would restore US BOTH to our original states but he refused this in favor of attempting to intimidate me into following his dictates. Now both of us are worse off than when we started. Not exactly constructive of him considering every step he took was one of escalation.

As far as me "Selling trust", that is just horse shit. I have been the first trading partner for HUNDREDS of users here easily, because I was at one point the only reliable game retailer. Additionally new users feel comfortable trading with me because they know I treat people fairly. I purposely labeled all trust left to new users with the product or service they transacted with me so that people reviewing their feedback could know EXACTLY what it was for and judge the rating accordingly. Just because I get a lot of new users here started does NOT mean I am selling feedback, and all the accusation is just another attempt at slander me so no one else has to admit their own mistakes here.

So far I am the ONLY ONE WHO HAS admitted any wrong doing in this situation. No one has even acknowledged he instigated this and he should have been minding his own business to begin with, and my reward for offering reconciliation is more punitive punishment and coercion of my trusted trading partners to remove me from the default trust. I have lost what little respect I have for the staff here with this (although I'm sure they could give a shit what this community thinks). They are simply using me as a scape goat so they can move on with the new trust system WITHOUT having to admit mistakes and abuse were made on their part. As usual complaints against mods and staff are just swept under the rug and ignored while they offer me up as a sacrifice to appease their detractors for the slightest infraction. Standard operating procedure around here."

[1714976111]

1714976111

[1714976111]

1714976111

[1714976111]

1714976111

[redsn0w]

Can I ask you : is it a real problem for you ? You are still a trustwhorty user  but you are not more in the defaultTtus list.

[hashie]

TECSHARE, don't bite off more than what you can chew.

It is very clear that 'jrretirement' is a sockpuppet of yours, after he was absent on the forums for months and suddenly jumps into attacking Armis and posts exclusively in the thread (minutes after it was posted, this was after a complete absence from the forum by the way).

1. You left trust feedback out of spite when you are trying to rip people off with overpriced listings, and someone pointed out a cheaper deal.

2. You used sockpuppets to sling mud and vitriol at the victim.

3. I'm leaving both of your accounts negative feedback over this.

Stop, apologize, and burn your sockpuppet. You are not going to make things better for you.

PS: This is from a hero member. You're going to get default-trusted negatives if you try to bring any more sockpuppets into this thread.

[MadZ]

You still have an excellent trading reputation, and your trust ratings will be weighted with this in mind when people see them. Being removed from default trust will not change this for most intelligent people. The problem is that default trust comes with added weight, and it is clear that any trust you give will be more damaging than normal. Since a TWC tag arguably ruins one's account, most people would say that people on default trust have an extra obligation to act responsibly with their trust ratings. It is clear that a majority of the community felt your trust rating on Armis was unwarranted, because of the damage default trust has. Your refusal to delete the rating in response to this is what caused your removal from default trust. You're entitled to leave whatever trust you would like to as an individual, but not with the added weight of other respected members of the community, which is what default trust does. The trust system is a right, but default trust is a privilege, which you lost when you acted how you did.

You also point out that many other members in default trust give out trust ratings for similar reasons (I believe you mentioned Vod as an example). What distinguishes them from you is that if a valid complaint were to be made against one of their trust ratings and there was a consensus that they were wrong to give such a rating, they would probably remove it, while you refused to do so.

[TECSHARE]

Can I ask you : is it a real problem for you ? You are still a trustwhorty user  but you are not more in the defaultTtus list.

It is a problem for me because this is completely absurd the lengths staff went to to cast me as a bad guy while they themselves practice exactly what they accused me of on a daily basis. Also I am some how supposed to know it is ok for them but not for me. They threw me under a bus so they don't have to acknowledge their own abuses. All I was doing was defending myself when the staff refused to do anything about it, then they punished me for it punitively, even after I fixed the mistake of value in the trust. This is a problem for me because I was minding my own business and this was instigated against me FOR NO REASON to begin with.

TECSHARE, don't bite off more than what you can chew.

It is very clear that 'jrretirement' is a sockpuppet of yours, after he was absent on the forums for months and suddenly jumps into attacking Armis and posts exclusively in the thread (minutes after it was posted, this was after a complete absence from the forum by the way).

1. You left trust feedback out of spite when you are trying to rip people off with overpriced listings, and someone pointed out a cheaper deal.

2. You used sockpuppets to sling mud and vitriol at the victim.

3. I'm leaving both of your accounts negative feedback over this.

Stop, apologize, and burn your sockpuppet. You are not going to make things better for you.

PS: This is from a hero member. You're going to get default-trusted negatives if you try to bring any more sockpuppets into this thread.

1. Asking for what I paid for for an item is not "ripping people off" or "overpriced". If that was the truth no one would ever purchase these items and I would have zero reason to list them correct? Additionally you CLAIM it is a ripoff, but many people GLADLY PAY the fair price of COST because they are assured I am not going to run off with their money.

2. Absolutely not. Just because I have supporters and I tell them about this thread doesn't make them my sock puppets. I use no alternative names here. I would ask the staff to confirm that we have no IP correlation but I am sure they could give a fuck less.

3. That is quite childish and and most certainly an abuse of the feedback system while you accuse me of being abusive in the same breath. What is also convenient is you refuse to use your actual name instead using an account that was registered last month, and is meaningless for you to do your dirty work to abuse the feedback system. I rectified the mistake I made, I corrected the value in the trust. I have nothing to apologize for because I have no sock puppets, and I am not the perpetrator here.

4. So threats against me now for the activities of others? From people on the default trust no less? I thought leaving negatives to people for non scamming related activities from the default trust list was frowned upon. You don't see the irony in you threatening me with negative default trust for me speaking up about systematic abuse here? Of course not, that is what hypocrites call "logical".

You also point out that many other members in default trust give out trust ratings for similar reasons (I believe you mentioned Vod as an example). What distinguishes them from you is that if a valid complaint were to be made against one of their trust ratings and there was a consensus that they were wrong to give such a rating, they would probably remove it, while you refused to do so.

Complaints are made against VOD constantly. Who decides which are valid?... The staff and mods...
As far as refusing to remove it, that's not true. I gave Armis the opportunity to have my trust removed from his account if he deleted his multiple slanderous posts in my marketplace threads and stayed out of them in the future. Instead of taking this option which would restore us both to our original state he chose to continue to escalate the process as he did from his very first post to a point where we both suffered permanent effects. This forum is little more than a cartel, and I expect their toadies to show up here in numbers so try to slander me for refusing to submit to their coercion in order to moderate the trust ratings left by users (while claiming they don't).

[Rupture]

Vod did the same thing to me. He REMOVED the feedback before he got removed from DefaultTrust.

You only removed the feedback AFTER you got removed from DefaultTrust. That's why you are not coming back.

Your negative feedback for Armis AT ALL (even with 0 BTC risked) is abuse of the trust system. Armis didn't do shit, he did everyone else a favor revealing that you're selling overpriced shit

Mods, please strip tecshare of his legendary status

[TECSHARE]

In response to hilariousanco https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.msg9494375#msg9494375

"...And I was directed to this thread actually, by Techshare via PM asking if I could "give him some support" and I suspect he did the same to you, but as usual people start crying about there being a conspiracy or the mods are abusing their power blah blah blah when something just hasn't gone their way and they were in the wrong."

I asked you for some support here because before this happened I had worked with you to resolve issues of people who had lost credibility on my trust list, indicating that I actually did take actions to help to preserve the trust list's accuracy, but clearly asking for some one to speak on my integrity when it is being questioned is shilling. This whole time you are accusing me of acting excessively but no one seems to understand that you yourselves operate that way, looking for any reason or excuse to attack me or twist activity that happens here on a daily basis into some kind of horrific insufferable travesty that can't be forgiven. There is no conspiracy, just a lot of hypocrisy.

Vod did the same thing to me. He REMOVED the feedback before he got removed from DefaultTrust.

You only removed the feedback AFTER you got removed from DefaultTrust. That's why you are not coming back.

Your negative feedback for Armis AT ALL (even with 0 BTC risked) is abuse of the trust system. Armis didn't do shit, he did everyone else a favor revealing that you're selling overpriced shit

Mods, please strip tecshare of his legendary status

Actually I removed the value to the feedback rating at the request of the moderators first. I was given the distinct impression from them that this was all they were concerned about. After I did this then they decided to try to coerce me to remove my trust. They provided me ZERO support when I reported it then punish me for defending myself from harassment. If my "shit" is so over priced (at cost), how would I ever sell anything if it is so unfair? He was NOT there to warn people, if that was the case he would have posted and then LEFT. Instead he hung around and kept making insulting, rude, and harassing posts.

He was there for his own entertainment. You claim my negative trust is an abuse, but some how everyone else on the forum is allowed to use their trust in this way (including those on default trust). What they took issue with was the fact that I was using it as leverage (my only means of action) to get Armis to stop harassing me and delete his posts in my marketplace OPs. He refused and decided on escalation (which is why the feedback won't be removed). I gave him an opportunity to have it removed but instead he opted to attack me further. Then in a largely missed irony they then used my removal from the trust system as coercion to force me to change my supposedly unmoderated trust. BTW the threats are classy and drive home your point It is funny how this community claims to be so free, progressive, and morally unregulated but when someone disagrees with a "popular" stance they are threatened and harassed until they submit to what the group decides.

[TECSHARE]

This thread is a perfect example of how this happens ALL THE TIME on thee forums and the mods and staff pick and choose who they want to coerce and harass and who they want to excuse, therefore dictating the content and context of trust to their liking

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.0

[EyesWideOpen]

Vod did the same thing to me. He REMOVED the feedback before he got removed from DefaultTrust.

You only removed the feedback AFTER you got removed from DefaultTrust. That's why you are not coming back.

Your negative feedback for Armis AT ALL (even with 0 BTC risked) is abuse of the trust system. Armis didn't do shit, he did everyone else a favor revealing that you're selling overpriced shit

Mods, please strip tecshare of his legendary status

But Vod still originally "abused" the DefaultTrust on you, didn't he?
Just like he he did it on a few other posters.
I remember he gave Evershawn a fake feedback a while ago and after Evershawn fought back and proved he lied, he changed the content of the feedback.
There was another Sr. member from earlier this year that I can't remember that Vod gave a false feedback to. The guy just gave up after being hounded in his thread by people who excused Vod's false feeback.

Why the double standards?

[peligro]

In the end why are you so bothered? Your buyers can see your feedback and see that you are a reputed seller.

[TECSHARE]

You also point out that many other members in default trust give out trust ratings for similar reasons (I believe you mentioned Vod as an example). What distinguishes them from you is that if a valid complaint were to be made against one of their trust ratings and there was a consensus that they were wrong to give such a rating, they would probably remove it, while you refused to do so.

Really? Here is several people making complaints about it... I don't see anything being done or even replies being made.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=865244.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=742484.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=865235.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=873763.0

In the end why are you so bothered? Your buyers can see your feedback and see that you are a reputed seller.

I am bothered because I did not instigate this. I tried reporting the user's posts but I was ignored. Once I took action against him he goes and cries as if I tried to perpetrate something on him and as if he was minding his own business. The staff licked it up and used it as a convenient example to others that they should obey "or else". Now I am on the default trust list as untrusted x2, effectively taking from me something I rightfully earned with my hard work. They are acting as if my reputation was granted to me and is theirs to take from me but it is not. I EARNED IT, and punishing me punitively for not following their dictates after submitting to the demands of a troll is just insult to injury.

Furthermore even beyond my individual case, this policy of moderating trust by using default trust removal as leverage against users is VERY DESTRUCTIVE to this community and simply allows trolls to use the staff to tear apart this community with the staff's own hands.

[iCEBREAKER]

In the end why are you so bothered? Your buyers can see your feedback and see that you are a reputed seller.

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does.  Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.

I'm not bothered, but rather amused at the absurdity of the fiasco which is the BTCT Trust ranking system.

Satoshi, after years of others trying to fine-tune and prevent gaming of decentralized online trust consensus systems, cut that Gordian Knot with his PoW blockchain.

What incendiary irony that His Holy Forum struggles with and bickers over its centralized, politicized, at-best minimally useful Trust ranking system.

Yes, yes.  We know.  It's For The Children^TM (IE noobs).  Of course.

How's that working out for us?  Are we free from the Paycoins of the world yet?  Has the trust system done anything but sow conflict and create rancorous distractions?

[TECSHARE]

More proof that the rules are for everyone... except staff, mods, and their pals.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

[dogie]

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does.  Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.

He's not in defaulttrust?

[TECSHARE]

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does.  Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.

He's not in defaulttrust?

Nope. I was removed over a single negative trust rating dispute. Of course this is acceptable for people like Vod, but not any one else.
I also got to be the VERY FIRST test case for trust exclusions (amazing the timing of the creation of this "feature"). Theymos excluded me over this, basically in effect putting a permanent cap on my trust ranking and nuking 3 years of hard earned trust, because no matter how many people trust me, Theymos will always rank higher. So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted. Of course, Theymos does not moderate trust ratings!

[theymos]

So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted.

That's not how it works. If someone adds you directly to their trust list, then no exclusions will cause you to be removed.

Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network.

[Vod]

Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network.

We all support your decision, Theymos.

[TECSHARE]

So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted.

That's not how it works. If someone adds you directly to their trust list, then no exclusions will cause you to be removed.

Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network.

It does in fact cascade down the default trust and make sure only people who explicitly add me or do not add default trust, trust me, and even then those people who trust me do not factor into my own trust rating score. You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of in addition to removing me from the default trust (which I never once asked to be on BTW, and still don't want to). After all you do not moderate trust right?

I get removing me from the default trust list, that is fine if the rules are the same for everybody, but if you do not moderate trust ratings why did you exclude me, harming my trust score, because of a single rating I left that you demanded I remove but I refused? That sure seems like moderation of the trust to me. I tried to have a private discussion with you, but you are unwilling to communicate with me, turning me to the general public of the forum.

Trust exclusions are just a back door way for you and the highest ranking in the trust to take quiet retribution upon contributing members who have worked to build their reputations while not taking responsibility for it because no one really sees it, unlike a trust rating where you have to explain yourself and everyone can see it.

[Vod]

You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of

YOU for some reason feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally do not approve of.   

[TECSHARE]

You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of

YOU for some reason feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally do not approve of.   

I know it is hard for you to have an original thought, but please try harder than this refractory drivel. Here is how it went:

1. I criticized your abusive behavior (multiple abusive ratings for personal issues that were non scam related)
2. You left me a negative trust rating because you did not like me talking critically of your behavior, ironically trying to prove you do not abuse your position on the default trust... by abusing your position on the default trust to attempt to intimidate me into silence.
3. I then started advocating for your removal from the default trust.

In short, it is not at all the same thing. Sorry to spoil your mindless soundbite type response.

[BadBear]

It does in fact cascade down the default trust and make sure only people who explicitly add me or do not add default trust, trust me, and even then those people who trust me do not factor into my own trust rating score.

I don't think you understand how the trust system works. Excluding you does not affect feedback left by others, your trust score has not been "harmed" by exclusions, It only makes your feedback show up as untrusted for those who don't add you to their trust list.

I get removing me from the default trust list, that is fine if the rules are the same for everybody, but if you do not moderate trust ratings why did you exclude me, harming my trust score, because of a single rating I left that you demanded I remove but I refused? That sure seems like moderation of the trust to me. I tried to have a private discussion with you, but you are unwilling to communicate with me, turning me to the general public of the forum.

If you're fine with not being in default trust, then I don't understand why you care about the exclusion. People who trust you still trust you, feedback left for you isn't affected. The only reason to care about the exclusion is that you want to be in the default trust network and have your own feedback show up for everyone else by default. The other effects you seem to be upset about are non-existent.

[Vod]

You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of

YOU for some reason feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally do not approve of.  

I know it is hard for you to have an original thought, but please try harder than this refractory drivel. Here is how it went:

1. I criticized your abusive behavior (multiple abusive ratings for personal issues that were non scam related)
2. You left me a negative trust rating because you did not like me talking critically of your behavior, ironically trying to prove you do not abuse your position on the default trust... by abusing your position on the default trust to attempt to intimidate me into silence.
3. I then started advocating for your removal from the default trust.

In short, it is not at all the same thing. Sorry to spoil your mindless soundbite type response.

Let's write out how it actually happened.  

1. In November 2014 you started posting lies about me, stating I was protected by forum admins, in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list.  Those lies continue to this day, in almost every thread you post in, despite being told multiple times that the forum admins are not protecting me.  Badbear even removed me from his trust!
2. In January 2015 I realized you would not stop lying and left you negative trust, CLEARLY stating that you were lying about me in an effort to have me removed from default trust.  This negative trust is based on facts and no way abusive.  Yet you continue to lie and say it is abusive.
3. In March 2015, based on continued lies from you that it was untrue, I located a reference link and added it to the trust.  As you pointed out, the reference link was *after* the initial trust, so I then went and found a quote from November where you lied about me, proving my trust was valid.  

In short, you feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single VALID trust rating you personally do not approve of.     Same thing you claim Theymos did to you.  Your hatred and jealousy will not allow you to see your hypocrisy.  

Don't feel offended if I reply less often to your posts.  Your lies have been proven and I, like everyone else, is getting sick of your constant twisting of my words.  

[TECSHARE]

The only reason to care about the exclusion is that you want to be in the default trust network and have your own feedback show up for everyone else by default. The other effects you seem to be upset about are non-existent.

You summed it up here. the feedback which would have been visible to those in the default trust is not not visible, effectively lowering my visible trust rating for the VAST MAJORITY of the users here. So no, it really does exist because I earned those trust ratings, now suddenly they are effectively negated, but of course "trust is not moderated".

[Vod]

The only reason to care about the exclusion is that you want to be in the default trust network and have your own feedback show up for everyone else by default. The other effects you seem to be upset about are non-existent.

You summed it up here. the feedback which would have been visible to those in the default trust is not not visible, effectively lowering my visible trust rating for the VAST MAJORITY of the users here. So no, it really does exist because I earned those trust ratings, now suddenly they are effectively negated, but of course "trust is not moderated".

You are a liar - therefore not trustworthy.  Your ratings should NOT show up in the trusted feedback, because there is a good chance they are lies.   

[ACCTseller]

So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted.

That's not how it works. If someone adds you directly to their trust list, then no exclusions will cause you to be removed.

Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network.

It does in fact cascade down the default trust and make sure only people who explicitly add me or do not add default trust, trust me, and even then those people who trust me do not factor into my own trust rating score. You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of in addition to removing me from the default trust (which I never once asked to be on BTW, and still don't want to). After all you do not moderate trust right?

I get removing me from the default trust list, that is fine if the rules are the same for everybody, but if you do not moderate trust ratings why did you exclude me, harming my trust score, because of a single rating I left that you demanded I remove but I refused? That sure seems like moderation of the trust to me. I tried to have a private discussion with you, but you are unwilling to communicate with me, turning me to the general public of the forum.

Trust exclusions are just a back door way for you and the highest ranking in the trust to take quiet retribution upon contributing members who have worked to build their reputations while not taking responsibility for it because no one really sees it, unlike a trust rating where you have to explain yourself and everyone can see it.

The reason why theymos has you excluded from his trust list is because he does not trust your sent trust ratings, and that you are on someone else's (blazr) trust list who is on his trust list. If theymos did not exclude you from his trust list then he would see your sent trust by default because theymos has blazr on his trust list and blazr has you on his trust list (he would trust you via blazr)

I didn't look into it, however I assume that BadBear has you excluded for similar reasons.

If someone were to have a trust depth set to "2" then there are actually three levels of trust, level 0 (this is your trust list), level 1 (this is made up of the people who are one level 0 have on their trust list), and level 2 (this is made up of the people who are on level 1 have on their trust list).

If you are on level 0 of someone's trust list, then your trust ratings automatically show up. If you are on one or more person's level 1 trust list and are excluded by equal to or less then the same number of people on level 1 then your trust ratings will show up. This is regardless of how many people exclude you on level two.

So if user "A" were to only have you and DefaultTrust on their trust list then your trust ratings will show up. If user "B" were to only have user "A'  on their trust list then their trust network would be made up of everyone on "level 1" of DefaultTrust, you and everyone on your trust list.

In another example, if user "C" were to have both you and theymos in their trust list, then your ratings would still show up. If user "D" only had user "C" in their trust list then your ratings would show up because user "C" has you in their trust list and low levels of a trust network override anything that a higher level does.
I think you should probably drop your signature, and remove the negative trust that you left for Armis. (also your PGP key will not import with the way you have it formatted in your profile - I would suggest having a link to the public key in a keyserver with either the short ID or the fingerprint).

I do admit that you do appear to have a much more level head regarding the trust system as of recently and I do agree that a lot of your points regarding some people in the default trust network abusing their position do have merit.

[ACCTseller]

The only reason to care about the exclusion is that you want to be in the default trust network and have your own feedback show up for everyone else by default. The other effects you seem to be upset about are non-existent.

You summed it up here. the feedback which would have been visible to those in the default trust is not not visible, effectively lowering my visible trust rating for the VAST MAJORITY of the users here. So no, it really does exist because I earned those trust ratings, now suddenly they are effectively negated, but of course "trust is not moderated".

The fact that you are in default trust (or that you are not in default trust) is not going to affect your trust score. Your trust score is determined by the received feedback that you got from your trading partners.

Your trust score is lowered because you have a negative trust rating from Vod

[TECSHARE]

The only reason to care about the exclusion is that you want to be in the default trust network and have your own feedback show up for everyone else by default. The other effects you seem to be upset about are non-existent.

You summed it up here. the feedback which would have been visible to those in the default trust is not not visible, effectively lowering my visible trust rating for the VAST MAJORITY of the users here. So no, it really does exist because I earned those trust ratings, now suddenly they are effectively negated, but of course "trust is not moderated".

The fact that you are in default trust (or that you are not in default trust) is not going to affect your trust score. Your trust score is determined by the received feedback that you got from your trading partners.

Your trust score is lowered because you have a negative trust rating from Vod

You are confusing being on the "default trust list" with having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree". These are two different things, and not having your ratings visible on the default trust tree is a serious repercussion, especially if you spent years building that trust.

[TECSHARE]

You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of

YOU for some reason feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally do not approve of.  

I know it is hard for you to have an original thought, but please try harder than this refractory drivel. Here is how it went:

1. I criticized your abusive behavior (multiple abusive ratings for personal issues that were non scam related)
2. You left me a negative trust rating because you did not like me talking critically of your behavior, ironically trying to prove you do not abuse your position on the default trust... by abusing your position on the default trust to attempt to intimidate me into silence.
3. I then started advocating for your removal from the default trust.

In short, it is not at all the same thing. Sorry to spoil your mindless soundbite type response.

Let's write out how it actually happened.  

1. In November 2014 you started posting lies about me, stating I was protected by forum admins, in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list.  Those lies continue to this day, in almost every thread you post in, despite being told multiple times that the forum admins are not protecting me.  Badbear even removed me from his trust!

2. In January 2015 I realized you would not stop lying and left you negative trust, CLEARLY stating that you were lying about me in an effort to have me removed from default trust.  This negative trust is based on facts and no way abusive.  Yet you continue to lie and say it is abusive.

3. In March 2015, based on continued lies from you that it was untrue, I located a reference link and added it to the trust.  As you pointed out, the reference link was *after* the initial trust, so I then went and found a quote from November where you lied about me, proving my trust was valid.  

In short, you feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single VALID trust rating you personally do not approve of.     Same thing you claim Theymos did to you.  Your hatred and jealousy will not allow you to see your hypocrisy.  

Don't feel offended if I reply less often to your posts.  Your lies have been proven and I, like everyone else, is getting sick of your constant twisting of my words.  

1. I do not dictate to BadBear what to do, Badbear does what Badbear wants. If you were removed from his trust list you should discuss that with him. You can not place responsibility for this at my feet. Even though you so vigorously and repeatedly claim those lies exist, you have lots of trouble quoting them. The two examples you have given are in fact hardly directly about you, and do not even mention you by name for that matter. Your reference also claimed that the lie you left your rating for was left as a result of a statement I made AFTER you left it! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890256#msg10890256

2. I NEVER ONCE called for you to be removed from the default trust until you left me a negative rating, NOT ONCE. I challenge you to quote me on this previous to the opening of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0
I was critical of your behavior, but this is not at all equivalent to calling from your removal from the default trust.

3. You are just trying to play tricky word games here to confuse the situation. You originally left me a negative trust on January 6th, in which you included exactly the same statement that is there now (only with no reference). The reference you most recently added, referenced a post made IN THIS THREAD made AFTER your original trust rating which is almost completely identical accusing me of lying. If you were just replacing your original rating, what was this lie before January 6th that I made that caused you to leave it in the first place?

First of all I am not the admin of this site, so your little refractory victim card doesn't really apply about "nuking 3 years of your trust". You are on the default trust, I am a regular nontrusted user. Under this system you have FAR MORE ability to damage my reputation, so please spare me the act about how I am victimizing you simply by being critical of your behavior.

You could just remove your negative rating for me, or be more careful of how you choose to leave negative ratings for people, but you refuse to do either of those things. You have choices. I have no other choice to resist your abuse but to make your abuse a matter of public discussion. Just because you do not like this does not make it a lie. Furthermore you haven't proven a single supposed lie I have made (as if that is a reason to leave negative ratings). Just because you repeatedly declare you have does not make it fact.

[Vod]

2. I NEVER ONCE called for you to be removed from the default trust until you left me a negative rating, NOT ONCE. I challenge you to quote me on this previous to the opening of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0
I was critical of your behavior, but this is not at all equivalent to calling from your removal from the default trust.

 

Why is it that everyone except VOD is being told to calm down in spite of him clearly getting a complex here, and clearly the one in the wrong? Why is it I never see anyone on the staff telling VOD to check himself?  This kind of "scambusting" preemptive activity is causing more destruction to this community than it is preventing. This is a symptom of a larger problem in this community that if ignored will reduce it to nothing but a dusty scammer/troll filled forum. I wonder how much ad revenue the forum will make then.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914551.msg10043569#msg10043569
January 05, 2015, 03:20:48 AM

This is just one of dozens of examples of your lying.  If you are not encouraging Theymos to remove me from default trust, what are you doing?  Yep, you never uttered the exact words, but your meaning was clear.

You posted that just before I left you negative trust - so it's safe for you to view that post as the one that got you the trust.  

So there we go - I've proven that you were lying about me in an effort to remove me from default trust.  That's what my trust rating says.  What is your issue now?  

[ACCTseller]

The only reason to care about the exclusion is that you want to be in the default trust network and have your own feedback show up for everyone else by default. The other effects you seem to be upset about are non-existent.

You summed it up here. the feedback which would have been visible to those in the default trust is not not visible, effectively lowering my visible trust rating for the VAST MAJORITY of the users here. So no, it really does exist because I earned those trust ratings, now suddenly they are effectively negated, but of course "trust is not moderated".

The fact that you are in default trust (or that you are not in default trust) is not going to affect your trust score. Your trust score is determined by the received feedback that you got from your trading partners.

Your trust score is lowered because you have a negative trust rating from Vod

You are confusing being on the "default trust list" with having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree". These are two different things, and not having your ratings visible on the default trust tree is a serious repercussion, especially if you spent years building that trust.

Are you referring to your sent ratings or received ratings? Your sent trust ratings will have nothing to do with your trust score. You could never send any trust ratings but still have a high trust score because you receive a lot of positive trust ratings.

Can you explain what you believe the difference between being on the default trust list and having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree" are? I am fairly certain this is just two different ways of describing the same thing.

[TECSHARE]

The reason why theymos has you excluded from his trust list is because he does not trust your sent trust ratings, and that you are on someone else's (blazr) trust list who is on his trust list. If theymos did not exclude you from his trust list then he would see your sent trust by default because theymos has blazr on his trust list and blazr has you on his trust list (he would trust you via blazr)

I didn't look into it, however I assume that BadBear has you excluded for similar reasons.

The real question is, why did Theymos feel it was necessary to have me excluded even though I am already removed from the default trust list? Why is it necessary for these exclusions to cascade down the default trust tree instead of just removing me from Theymos's personal trust? If the trust is not moderated, then why is the ADMIN of the site punishing me with an exclusion for a trust rating as some one not on the default trust any longer? I understood not removing my rating for Armis would result in my removal from the default trust list, but I didn't care about that as much as I cared about the staff attempting to extort me into removing it with threats of removal, so I let them remove me.

Unhappy that I dared to have an opinion of my own Theymos then added a brand new feature just for me (I was the very first person that a trust exclusion was used on) so he could then moderate my trust ratings by neutralizing the trust I had already earned by making it invisible to anyone on the default trust tree. This seems a whole lot like trust moderation from my perspective. On the forum, Theymos is the admin, he is not just some guy like the rest of us some times when convenient, and the admin when appropriate. Even as just another user he still carries the authority of admin of the site. Why did he feel it was necessary to use all of this force against me personally over a SINGLE trust rating? This is not something he does often.

I think you should probably drop your signature, and remove the negative trust that you left for Armis. (also your PGP key will not import with the way you have it formatted in your profile - I would suggest having a link to the public key in a keyserver with either the short ID or the fingerprint).

I do admit that you do appear to have a much more level head regarding the trust system as of recently and I do agree that a lot of your points regarding some people in the default trust network abusing their position do have merit.

As far as my PGP key, it is already on MIT key servers, and in a thread in the Reputation subforum. I realize there are issues with it thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I paid for the right to leave my rating there for Armis with my removal from the default trust. Why should I remove it? I will never be put back on the default trust, and I gain nothing from removing it. Theymos clearly is willing to go to exceptional lengths to damage my trust reputation here, and any kind of compromise I present is rejected repeatedly. I stand by the rating I left, because it is true, and I used it in no different of a way than anyone else who uses the trust system here does, yet these rules only apply to me, not people like Vod.

[TECSHARE]

2. I NEVER ONCE called for you to be removed from the default trust until you left me a negative rating, NOT ONCE. I challenge you to quote me on this previous to the opening of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0
I was critical of your behavior, but this is not at all equivalent to calling from your removal from the default trust.

 

An emoticon is not a reply. Nor is an emoticon a quote of this claim you are making about my statements. You swear over and over I did this yet you can never present it. I wonder why that is.

Why is it that everyone except VOD is being told to calm down in spite of him clearly getting a complex here, and clearly the one in the wrong? Why is it I never see anyone on the staff telling VOD to check himself?  This kind of "scambusting" preemptive activity is causing more destruction to this community than it is preventing. This is a symptom of a larger problem in this community that if ignored will reduce it to nothing but a dusty scammer/troll filled forum. I wonder how much ad revenue the forum will make then.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914551.msg10043569#msg10043569
January 05, 2015, 03:20:48 AM

This is just one of dozens of examples of your lying.  If you are not encouraging Theymos to remove me from default trust, what are you doing?  Yep, you never uttered the exact words, but your meaning was clear.

You posted that just before I left you negative trust - so it's safe for you to view that post as the one that got you the trust.  

So there we go - I've proven that you were lying about me in an effort to remove me from default trust.  That's what my trust rating says.  What is your issue now?  

So now it is acceptable to leave negative trust ratings for your INTERPRETATION OF the meaning of my words? You interpreting unspoken words is not a lie. That is called you getting upset. Please learn the difference. This is not proof of anything except that you can not back up your allegations and are simply covering for your obvious abuse of the trust system.

[redsn0w]

@TECSHARE,

Maybe theymos has removed you from his trust lost because he (didn't) doesn't trust you, I don't see any problem in that (he is the admin and he can do whatever he wants). If you don't like this forum, maybe you can always leave (I think no one obligate you to stay here, or am I wrong?).

[TECSHARE]

Are you referring to your sent ratings or received ratings? Your sent trust ratings will have nothing to do with your trust score. You could never send any trust ratings but still have a high trust score because you receive a lot of positive trust ratings.

Can you explain what you believe the difference between being on the default trust list and having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree" are? I am fairly certain this is just two different ways of describing the same thing.

I am talking about the fact that most of the trust ratings I have already received have now been made invisible by anyone on the entire default trust tree UNLESS they explicitly add me to their trust list. If some one already trusts me, what good does it do to have my trust score show for them? They already know I can be trusted. So in effect from the perspective of the VAST MAJORITY of the users on this forum, my trust rating is at about at a quarter of its former visible score, in effect punishing me by taking trust ratings from me that I have already earned by preventing them from displaying in my visible trust score number.

Play with your trust list, try adding me to your trust list and removing me along with removing the default trust, or anyone on level 1 default trust. You will see the massive difference.

[Vod]

Are you referring to your sent ratings or received ratings? Your sent trust ratings will have nothing to do with your trust score. You could never send any trust ratings but still have a high trust score because you receive a lot of positive trust ratings.

Can you explain what you believe the difference between being on the default trust list and having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree" are? I am fairly certain this is just two different ways of describing the same thing.

I am talking about the fact that most of the trust ratings I have already received have now been made invisible by anyone on the entire default trust tree UNLESS they explicitly add me to their trust list. If some one already trusts me, what good does it do to have my trust score show for them? They already know I can be trusted. So in effect from the perspective of the VAST MAJORITY of the users on this forum, my trust rating is at about at a quarter of its former visible score, in effect punishing me by taking trust ratings from me that I have already earned by preventing them from displaying in my visible trust score number.

Play with your trust list, try adding me to trust and removing me along with removing the default trust, or anyone on level 1 default trust. You will see the massive difference.

People shouldn't trust you by default.  You lie.  Maybe Theymos saw that?  I don't know.  

[TECSHARE]

@TECSHARE,

Maybe theymos has removed you from his trust lost because he (didn't) doesn't trust you, I don't see any problem in that (he is the admin and he can do whatever he wants). If you don't like this forum, maybe you can always leave (I think no one obligate you to stay here, or am I wrong?).

The problem with your logic is twofold:

1. He, as you said is the ADMIN of the site. He claims the trust list is not moderated, yet he, as the admin, stepped in to damage my trust score as a result of a trust rating I left. I was removed from the default trust, why is it then also appropriate to exclude me from a centralized position of authority?
I take issue with his claims of not moderating the trust when he clearly went to exceptional lengths to do so in my case.

2. Yes, I could just leave, but then the 3 years I spent building a reputation here would be wasted now wouldn't they? This effort is used as a method to extort anyone who has spent time and money into building a reputation here. Everyone knows if they speak out, they risk having their hard work destroyed, therefore there is a constant state of chill effect against speaking out about abuses from the staff or their buddies like Vod. Anyone else who does not have a reputation that they can threaten to take away, they can simply cast as sock puppets or scammer, then declare the debate over. I just happen to have an exceptionally long and honest trading history, so they have more difficulty marginalizing me (hence the exclusion).

[BadBear]

Are you referring to your sent ratings or received ratings? Your sent trust ratings will have nothing to do with your trust score. You could never send any trust ratings but still have a high trust score because you receive a lot of positive trust ratings.

Can you explain what you believe the difference between being on the default trust list and having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree" are? I am fairly certain this is just two different ways of describing the same thing.

I am talking about the fact that most of the trust ratings I have already received have now been made invisible by anyone on the entire default trust tree UNLESS they explicitly add me to their trust list. If some one already trusts me, what good does it do to have my trust score show for them? They already know I can be trusted. So in effect from the perspective of the VAST MAJORITY of the users on this forum, my trust rating is at about at a quarter of its former visible score, in effect punishing me by taking trust ratings from me that I have already earned by preventing them from displaying in my visible trust score number.

Play with your trust list, try adding me to trust and removing me along with removing the default trust, or anyone on level 1 default trust. You will see the massive difference.

I see where you're confused now. Adding you to my trust list directly does not have the same effect that removing your exclusion would. Adding you to my trust list does make your trust score much higher because most of the people in your trust network (who have mostly left you positive feedback) would also be in my trust network. This would not be the case if your exclusion were removed. If your exclusion were removed, you would only be at depth 2 in default trust (adding you to my trust list directly would make you depth 0), people you add to your trust list would not be added to the trust network in the same way they would if someone were you to add you to their trust list directly.  

Believe what you want to believe though, but you're wasting your time.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The problem with your logic is twofold:

1. He, as you said is the ADMIN of the site. He claims the trust list is not moderated, yet he, as the admin, stepped in to damage my trust score as a result of a trust rating I left. I was removed from the default trust, why is it then also appropriate to exclude me from a centralized position of authority?
I take issue with his claims of not moderating the trust when he clearly went to exceptional lengths to do so in my case.

Might be the "end of the road". You are now saying "theymos is abusing the trust system" or am I interpreting it wrong?

theymos removed you because he didn't trust your "judgments" but he may still "trust" you. Both are different. He, like everyone else, has the right to moderate "his" trust list.

2. Yes, I could just leave, but then the 3 years I spent building a reputation here would be wasted now wouldn't they? This effort is used as a method to extort anyone who has spent time and money into building a reputation here. Everyone knows if they speak out, they risk having their hard work destroyed, therefore there is a constant state of chill effect against speaking out about abuses from the staff or their buddies like Vod. Anyone else who does not have a reputation that they can threaten to take away, they can simply cast as sock puppets or scammer, then declare the debate over. I just happen to have an exceptionally long and honest trading history, so they have more difficulty marginalizing me (hence the exclusion).

I still don't understand "how". Your received feedback still stay as trusted except a few which were left by users who "you" trusted but your trust rating is still high and is good. I couldn't understand "how your reputation-building was destroyed" and "how your words in signature is true".

However, I understand your feeling but doing this won't do any good to you other than making it worst. I request* you to stop this because your trust isn't destroyed and you are good to trade but your "judgment" needs improvement which causes delay on your return to trust list.

* Neither suggest nor recommend.

OP:

[ img]https://i.imgur.com/thoCkKu.jpg[/img]

[TECSHARE]

your "judgment" needs improvement which causes delay on your return to trust list.

What makes you think I seek to be on the trust list? You assume you know what I want but you are wrong. I have said repeatedly the default trust system needs to be removed. What I want is to be able to use the forum that I have contributed to for years without having rules enforced upon me that I am not also protected by. If I should be removed from the default trust for supposedly stifling free speech, why is it another user can then ACTUALLY repeatedly abuse that same system to try to intimidate me into stop talking about his abusive behavior without repercussion?

Theymos outwardly says the trust system is unmoderated, and yes has taken exceptional actions to have people removed from default trust solely for the sake of protecting "free speech", yet when some one like Vod leaves people negative trust for being critical of his actions over and over it magically goes unseen. Have you every asked yourself why there is no official forum rules posted ANYWHERE on the forum? Kind of hard to follow the rules if they aren't posted anywhere right? Unfortunately though when you make rules they apply to everybody, and then those with the authority to act would not be as free to do whatever they liked either. The trust system has turned into a protectionist system. Do as I say, not as I do. This is antithetical to the core concepts of Bitcoin.

Theymos has a right to do whatever he wants, but when he as an individual makes these choices about individual cases of a trust disputes, then he is in fact moderating trust regardless if he wants to be Theymos the individual or Theymos the admin. He is always both because his actions result in the same amount of force.

[dogie]

your "judgment" needs improvement which causes delay on your return to trust list.

What makes you think I seek to be on the trust list? You assume you know what I want but you are wrong. I have said repeatedly the default trust system needs to be removed. What I want is to be able to use the forum that I have contributed to for years without having rules enforced upon me that I am not also protected by. If I should be removed from the default trust for supposedly stifling free speech, why is it another user can then ACTUALLY repeatedly abuse that same system to try to intimidate me into stop talking about his abusive behavior without repercussion?

Theymos outwardly says the trust system is unmoderated, and yes has taken exceptional actions to have people removed from default trust solely for the sake of protecting "free speech", yet when some one like Vod leaves people negative trust for being critical of his actions over and over it magically goes unseen. Have you every asked yourself why there is no official forum rules posted ANYWHERE on the forum? Kind of hard to follow the rules if they aren't posted anywhere right? Unfortunately though when you make rules they apply to everybody, and then those with the authority to act would not be as free to do whatever they liked either. The trust system has turned into a protectionist system. Do as I say, not as I do. This is antithetical to the core concepts of Bitcoin.

Theymos has a right to do whatever he wants, but when he as an individual makes these choices about individual cases of a trust disputes, then he is in fact moderating trust regardless if he wants to be Theymos the individual or Theymos the admin. He is always both because his actions result in the same amount of force.

That's quite a stretch. You'd then have to argue that making top level choices on these forums (such as subforums, hosting choices and site development) are a form of moderation. Obviously they're not, they're an extension of administrative duties separate from moderation.

[TECSHARE]

your "judgment" needs improvement which causes delay on your return to trust list.

What makes you think I seek to be on the trust list? You assume you know what I want but you are wrong. I have said repeatedly the default trust system needs to be removed. What I want is to be able to use the forum that I have contributed to for years without having rules enforced upon me that I am not also protected by. If I should be removed from the default trust for supposedly stifling free speech, why is it another user can then ACTUALLY repeatedly abuse that same system to try to intimidate me into stop talking about his abusive behavior without repercussion?

Theymos outwardly says the trust system is unmoderated, and yes has taken exceptional actions to have people removed from default trust solely for the sake of protecting "free speech", yet when some one like Vod leaves people negative trust for being critical of his actions over and over it magically goes unseen. Have you every asked yourself why there is no official forum rules posted ANYWHERE on the forum? Kind of hard to follow the rules if they aren't posted anywhere right? Unfortunately though when you make rules they apply to everybody, and then those with the authority to act would not be as free to do whatever they liked either. The trust system has turned into a protectionist system. Do as I say, not as I do. This is antithetical to the core concepts of Bitcoin.

Theymos has a right to do whatever he wants, but when he as an individual makes these choices about individual cases of a trust disputes, then he is in fact moderating trust regardless if he wants to be Theymos the individual or Theymos the admin. He is always both because his actions result in the same amount of force.

That's quite a stretch. You'd then have to argue that making top level choices on these forums (such as subforums, hosting choices and site development) are a form of moderation. Obviously they're not, they're an extension of administrative duties separate from moderation.

So, your argument is trust moderation isn't moderated because it is done as done as an administrator instead of a moderator? Is that where Vod gets his powers, he just puts on a police hat?

[Vod]

Is that where Vod gets his powers, he just puts on a police hat?

And a uniform.

[SaltySpitoon]

So, your argument is trust moderation isn't moderated because it is done as done as an administrator instead of a moderator? Is that where Vod gets his powers, he just puts on a police hat?

30 minutes of writing results in a wall of text, read the TLDR if you would like, if you must skip anything, skip the first paragraph as the later sections are the solutions more than the reasoning.

TLDR: Theymos has no real motivation for running a corrupt trust system, much easier ways he could achieve any nefarious goals, people use the system wrong, new system needed acknowledged by all. Your best solution and the one that would make us all happiest would be to take some time and propose a new feasible system.

Vod gets his position on default trust from Tomatocage. Tomatocage is solely in charge of whether or not Vod stays on. Theymos could send Tomatocage a PM saying, hey I think Vod is getting out of line, and Tomatocage could say, hey get bent buddy, without any rammifications. Only if Tomatocage made very flawed judgement would Theymos consider removing Tomatocage from default trust depth 1. Staff make up less than half of default trust's 1st depth. It isn't shocking that staff/admins are on the default trust system, as if we had non neutral rational judgement, we wouldn't be staff in the first place. Others are people who have really proven themselves responsible to give accurate feedback. Tomatocage/OgNasty/Badbear/Myself/Theymos/etc are all on the same playing field, we are different branches of the 1st depth. Theymos has the ability to pick who goes on the first level of default trust, but his personal trustlist also carries the same weight as everyone else's. If Tomatocage/OgNasty/Dooglus all added you to their trust lists, it would override Theymos and Badbear's exclusion of you. Selective enforcement of the rules is impossible, since there are no rules, just accepted community made guidelines. Its like a handshake, there aren't rules to a handshake, but there are generally accepted practises. Don't leave people negatives for frivilous reasons, since people are relying more heavily on your feedback, don't spit in someone's hand when they offer to shake your hand. If you get 10 people representing members of default trust, and you spit in their hands during a handshake, some will be confused, some might walk away, some might punch you, they don't all act the same, but it is generally unacceptable to spit in their hand, so they will react how they see fit. If they pull a knife on you, thats an example of when Theymos would remove them from the default trust list. How someone reacts really comes down to the extension of reputation. If Vod acts unreasonably, it reflects poorly on Tomatocage, for that reason it is in Tomatocage's self interest to only keep Vod on if he is being more helpful than harmful. If Tomatocage doesn't respond and Vod goes unchecked, then Tomatocage looses his credibility, and if it reaches the point where Theymos' pick in Tomatocage is reflecting poorly on himself, thats when someone from the 1st depth of default trust would be removed, not as retaliation. Self interest is one of the best assurances that feedback means anything. Everyone operates as independantly as possible, hopefully the trust network can branch out enough to where it nears decentralization, and all disputes are handled between the 3rd/4th/5th depths, and the mandatory people up top aren't involved at all. That is if a better fix isn't made.

I don't know Theymos that well, but I know he isn't so petty that he would make any sort of action if people disagreed with him and all of default trust added you to their list and overrode his exclusion. I'm also quite sure that he would be thrilled to not be involved in default trust at all if a new system could be designed that would allow it. If he wanted to abuse people, there are far better ways he could have done it without the trust system. Theymos isn't active in the marketplace, and he doesn't run any services, why would he need to control the forum's trust? How is being in the center of the trust system benefiting him, and how much of his time is he wasting being involved? Why put in the effort if you have nothing to gain? You were around during the Scammer tag era, he was unhappy dealing with people's issues when he had absolute power. Then you were here when the idealistic trust system was developed, where people would make their own trust lists, and default trust would be just that, a list that was there until people customized there's to suit their needs. Honestly, who uses a default setting for anything long term? Was there any sort of manipulation there, or did people just latch on to default trust and refuse to make their own trust lists? Whenever I see people fighting against the trust system, they angrily say, Remove default trust! Make your own trust list! That'll show them right? Sure... yeah stick it to the man, help us use the trust system as designed. The man has better things to do than deal with petty squabbles over people's behavior, petty fights they get in, scam attempts, etc.

To be clear, I'm not shilling for the trust system, nor am I trying to maintain my position. I don't need to lick Theymos' boots, and I could honestly give a damn whether I stayed on or not. My proposals have been public for months, I'd be happy without a trust system at all, but that isn't a feasible solution either. If I didn't think the system as it was the best that anyone has thought of thus far, I'd be one of the first people to speak out for change. Your proposals for how to fix the issues with "Staff/Admin corruption and hypocrisy" aren't feasible any more than people who want to appoint moderators to the trust system. I dont think there is any staff/admin corruption going on, but if you can figure out a viable way to get the Staff/Admins out of the tangle in a responsible matter, I'm pretty sure thats what most would want, although I can't speak for everyone, but Theymos and myself for sure.

If you want to make a difference and further your cause at the same time, help to develop a new system that

1) Protects newbies
2) Helps to detect scams
3) Doesn't put any governing authority in place
4) Is resistant to trust spamming
5) Allows everyone to leave feedback for others
6) Is not moderated
7) all of the other features I can't think of off of the top of my head.

At this point, I don't especially care what you think is going on behind the scenes. Take a minute to think about who is involved in whatever corruption you percieve. Do they have motivation for it? Could it be more easily achieved in a less public way, or in a more effective way? What is it whoever involved in these scandals has to gain. Does Tomatocage owe Vod a life debt? Does Theymos have a secret business that he is using default trust to shill for? Who is the root of the problem, and why. If you stop and think rationally for a moment, and realize that no one has anything to gain here, perhaps you will realize that you aren't being singled out, your own actions are to blame. Each case is handled differently based on the individuals involved and the circumstances, and there isn't some elaborate scheme. If Theymos hated you, couldn't he have just found some bullshit excuse to ban you rather than just excluding you from a trust system? Would you be allowed to continue to post on a private forum about issues in its managment if it was true, and we were worried people would realize it? Think about the whole situation and whether it makes sense to you. Rationally, not while you are pissed off about something.

[Vod]

Vod gets his position on default trust from Tomatocage. Tomatocage is solely in charge of whether or not Vod stays on.

(Sorry to take away from your wall of text with just one line quoted lol)

How many times do we have to post this?  Tecshare will still lie that I'm protected by admin.  We may need to accept the fact he just won't get it.  

Unlike you, SS, I do care if I stay on the default trust.  Not for the power to negative rate someone (I'm ok to give that up), but for the last three years I've legitimately left HUNDREDS of negative trust ratings on hundreds of scammers.  If I get removed, all that disappears into untrusted feedback.  Many accounts have been abandoned, but I'm sure many would come back given a legacy account and a clean slate to scam again.

Tomatocage has contacted me about my trust, and I've listened.  Tecshare will claim this is my fifth or tenth or fiftieth chance, but the point is I believe TC and I've made adjustments.  I told him I would rather stop posting all together rather than let those hundreds of scammers loose onto the forum again.

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

[dogie]

for the last three years I've legitimately left HUNDREDS of negative trust ratings on hundreds of scammers.  If I get removed, all that disappears into untrusted feedback.  Many accounts have been abandoned, but I'm sure many would come back given a legacy account and a clean slate to scam again.

I've got a lot of your phishing ones covered now, although there are likely some I've missed. You can check which accounts are vulnerable because they'll only have -4 or -6 ratings which is from 1 person.

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.


Will read the SS wall when its not 8am the night after.

[deleterase]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.

That's nothing, dogie has been doing that since the dawn of time. Not only that, he asks his little band of followers to do the same, which is a clear abuse of the trust system. What's been done about that?

Nothing of course.

[evershawn]

So why isn't Vod removed from the default trust system then?

I'm a good example of abuse of that by him. We had an argument and he decided that he didn't like me and tried calling me a scammer because of it, even though I never scammed or even attempted to scam anyone. Eventually it was changed to what it is now so that it was not so obvious he was a liar, which is still abusive for someone with default trust. I complained to mods and all I ever got back was that it sucked but they don't get involved in the trust system.

I think they should get involved when it's someone with default trust who is abusing it. Yet Vod has abused it on many occasions for personal reasons or out of anger. Why isn't he removed?

[abyrnes81]

So why isn't Vod removed from the default trust system then?

I'm a good example of abuse of that by him. We had an argument and he decided that he didn't like me and tried calling me a scammer because of it, even though I never scammed or even attempted to scam anyone. Eventually it was changed to what it is now so that it was not so obvious he was a liar, which is still abusive for someone with default trust. I complained to mods and all I ever got back was that it sucked but they don't get involved in the trust system.

I think they should get involved when it's someone with default trust who is abusing it. Yet Vod has abused it on many occasions for personal reasons or out of anger. Why isn't he removed?

I think if you can post some valid proofs he will be removed as CITM has been removed in the previous days, but I think you know that trust system isn't moderated.

[evershawn]

Well, there's plenty of proof here in the forum.

There's even a thread that's calling me a scammer that Vod made back when he was really upset. Then when it goes it you can see him talking about his reasoning which has nothing to do with anything other than us arguing with each other.

He had also called me a pedophile and all kinds of other crap in the heat of his anger. Just search my user name you'll see all the stuff he did, far too much to list. He erased some of it later on when he realized how bad it made him look but a lot is immortalized in quotes as well.

Moral of the story is that you can see how much his emotions played a part in his trust abuse in my case, someone that never scammed anyone or even attempted to, suddenly labeled one simply because of one unstable default trust user that used it for nothing more than a personal vendetta tool to get at me out of sheer anger.

Totally understand not moderating the trust system but allowing default trust by people that abuse it (even if they do some good things with it like labeling obvious scammers with it), even if you abuse it once you shouldn't have it because you're not trust worthy to use something that powerful here.

Not saying he should have his trust moderated but he definately shouldn't be a defualt trust user. The guy goes around creating conflicts all day long with both honest members and scammers.

He even gave a guy negative trust for sticking up for me and then offered to give positive trust to someone if they would say things against me (proof of both here in the forum).

[abyrnes81]

Well, there's plenty of proof here in the forum.

There's even a thread that's calling me a scammer that Vod made back when he was really upset. Then when it goes it you can see him talking about his reasoning which has nothing to do with anything other than us arguing with each other.

He had also called me a pedophile and all kinds of other crap in the heat of his anger. Just search my user name you'll see all the stuff he did, far too much to list. He erased some of it later on when he realized how bad it made him look but a lot is immortalized in quotes as well.

Moral of the story is that you can see how much his emotions played a part in his trust abuse in my case, someone that never scammed anyone or even attempted to, suddenly labeled one simply because of one unstable default trust user that used it for nothing more than a personal vendetta tool to get at me out of sheer anger.

Totally understand not moderating the trust system but allowing default trust by people that abuse it (even if they do some good things with it like labeling obvious scammers with it), even if you abuse it once you shouldn't have it because you're not trust worthy to use something that powerful here.

Not saying he should have his trust moderated but he definately shouldn't be a defualt trust user. The guy goes around creating conflicts all day long with both honest members and scammers.

He even gave a guy negative trust for sticking up for me and then offered to give positive trust to someone if they would say things against me (proof of both here in the forum).

So he should be removed from the defaul trust list, his excuse for stay in that list is :

You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of

YOU for some reason feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally do not approve of.   

This is not a valid reason, he abused the trust system and if he will not be removed from that list as CYTM then all the trust system is a joke.

[evershawn]

It's funny when confronted with hard proof of the same, no action is taken and suddenly the topic is avoided and not responded to.

Guess enough said. So thick you could cut the hypocrisy with a butter knife. It's too bad that the idea of 'neutrality" and 'community run' is nothing more than a illusion to generate user base on a great idea. What is really boils down to is buddy/buddy and politics otherwise the other people that did the same and worse (like Vod) would be long removed from the default trust system by moderators.

Neutrality and community run only exists with it's convenient and aligned with the politics of the inner circle that run the site.

Very sad indeed.

[TECSHARE]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

[Muhammed Zakir]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

You left a false feedback. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all

If you leave a feedback which says "he is <anything (true) here> on my thread". It will be okay but you can't put a negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.. AFAIK neutral feedback wasn't there at that time, so it is better not to leave any negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.

Vod put negative feedback in your(& others) trust page for lying about him and maybe for other activities like "staff selwctive enforcement" and "irrelevant comments about trust system".

Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

[Bicknellski]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

Yes the inconsistency in moderation is palatable in these forums.

[dogie]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

Yes the inconsistency in moderation is palatable in these forums.

Feel free to make your own. There is always room for another niche or non bitcoin centric discussion base.

[TECSHARE]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

You left a false feedback. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all

If you leave a feedback which says "he is <anything (true) here> on my thread". It will be okay but you can't put a negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.. AFAIK neutral feedback wasn't there at that time, so it is better not to leave any negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.

Vod put negative feedback in your(& others) trust page for lying about him and maybe for other activities like "staff selwctive enforcement" and "irrelevant comments about trust system".

Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

Once again, I know how you all love making this about me over and over, but please resist your uncontrolled impulses to go off topic and use character assassinations as a method to avoid the topic at hand. It is funny how willing you are to chastise me for a single incident, yet when people like Vod repeatedly violate these same standards you willfully apply to me, suddenly the standards change and are no longer important or suddenly don't apply.

[Bicknellski]

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

You left a false feedback. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all

If you leave a feedback which says "he is <anything (true) here> on my thread". It will be okay but you can't put a negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.. AFAIK neutral feedback wasn't there at that time, so it is better not to leave any negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.

Vod put negative feedback in your(& others) trust page for lying about him and maybe for other activities like "staff selwctive enforcement" and "irrelevant comments about trust system".

Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

Once again, I know how you all love making this about me over and over, but please resist your uncontrolled impulses to go off topic and use character assassinations as a method to avoid the topic at hand. It is funny how willing you are to chastise me for a single incident, yet when people like Vod repeatedly violate these same standards you willfully apply to me, suddenly the standards change and are no longer important or suddenly don't apply.

Ask Dogie about that... he would know about the inconsistency given his spam of my thread and no ban. I hear you brother keep fighting the good fight.

[TECSHARE]

Tomatocage has contacted me about my trust, and I've listened.  Tecshare will claim this is my fifth or tenth or fiftieth chance, but the point is I believe TC and I've made adjustments.  I told him I would rather stop posting all together rather than let those hundreds of scammers loose onto the forum again.

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Lets build a list of negative ratings Vod left for people that are unrelated to scamming. I am going to skip over the ratings he left based on his mere suspicion because it would probably max out my posting limit:

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference 
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference 
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000     
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference 
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Decksperiment -4: -1 / +0(0)   2015-03-20  0.00000000   Reference   Severe mental issues. Read his past posts and his feedback (sent and received) and be VERY careful.


TECSHARE 92: -0 / +41(41)   2015-03-26  0.00000000   Reference   Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.


There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

-snip-

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference 
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference 
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000     
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference 
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Decksperiment -4: -1 / +0(0)   2015-03-20  0.00000000   Reference   Severe mental issues. Read his past posts and his feedback (sent and received) and be VERY careful.


TECSHARE 92: -0 / +41(41)   2015-03-26  0.00000000   Reference   Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.

[marcotheminer]

Can we not move on from this childish bickering?

[TECSHARE]

I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

OP

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.

Look how cute you are crafting so many excuses for your pal.

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "because you continued"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

OP

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.

Look how cute you are crafting so many excuses for your pal.

We aren't pals. I barely know him in this forum. Whoever agrees with Vod is his pal! Interesting...

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

Uh! I am sorry. Some conclusions can be wrong. You should investigate more before spreading disinformation.

I don't even know how could this be a debatable topic where you concluded. I am hearing for first time making a debate on a matter after concluding it.

Signature:
BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "because you continued"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

Don't want to copy-paste same thing here, so quoting.

2) Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. SaltySpitoon is not the god of Bitcointalk. He does not speak for everyone even if he had the ability to know everything. His opinion does not negate my opinion and magically some how make it a lie. Furthermore Saltyspitoon is just a mod, he has very little power to do anything on the forum, so he can hardly speak for higher level staff either. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

3) It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378

2) You said staff is protecting Vod and even created a thread about staff's selective enforcement conspiracy things. How can we agree with this conclusion? How can theymos benefits from these conspiracies? Don't tell me it's money because he can earned more and there is no money involved in these feedback. Your words are false. Furthermore, how are staffs protecting Vod when he is in trust list of Tomatocage.
 I am hoping you are joking about SaltySpitoon. He is a Global Moderator. There is no "higher" staff than Global Moderator. He has more than "very little" power. SaltySpitoon is a neutral diplomat. I haven't seen him making a biased statement/opinion. Furthermore, it wasn't an opinion, it was a statement.
 "Matter of debate"? You said a false things without even discussing. Obviously, the post you made against staff is not in a "discussing" or "debating" style, it is made on your feelings and your conclusion. So whatever you conclude aren't false? You are spreading disinformation but I am wishing it to be a misinformation. Hope this wish can be fulfilled.

3) I looked meaning of "abusive" but it isn't fitting here. According to *your version* of abuse, aren't you being an abuser? You started this anti-Vod war when you were removed from default trust list. Till that day, staffs are ok & DefaultTrust is ok. From that day forth, DefaultTrust is bad.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying?

You can if you aren't telling a lie. Partial yes. It is still not allowed.

Edit: TECSHARE has made some changes. So replying.

-snip-

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

BS comes from everyones' mouth. It is clear "users who done once" is about you. Feedback you left and feedback Vod left starts from same end but reach at different place. There is slight difference in them.

"people who have built up reputations" is also you. Nobody silenced you for good things you did. You still can. Sadly, you are still going for makeup conspiracy theories. Bitcointalk is centralized and hence, trust system. This centralized power doesn't give Vod special status.

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

This isn't upsetting Vod, you are telling a lie about whole staffs which is bad for whole forum.

Vod | 2015-03-26 | Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

[TECSHARE]

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Uh! I am sorry. Some conclusions can be wrong. You should investigate more before spreading disinformation.

I don't even know how could this be a debatable topic where you concluded. I am hearing for first time making a debate on a matter after concluding it.

So you are telling me I am not allowed to form an opinion and state it without the approval of everyone on the default trust list? Just because you do not agree with my opinion does not make it a lie or "disinformation". Everyone loves free speech until some one says something that offends them personally then suddenly it needs limits. Leaving people negative trust from the default trust list for what some one said has NEVER been an acceptable use of the trust system.

2) You said staff is protecting Vod and even created a thread about staff's selective enforcement conspiracy things. How can we agree with this conclusion? How can theymos benefits from these conspiracies? Don't tell me it's money because he can earned more and there is no money involved in these feedback. Your words are false. Furthermore, how are staffs protecting Vod when he is in trust list of Tomatocage.
 I am hoping you are joking about SaltySpitoon. He is a Global Moderator. There is no "higher" staff than Global Moderator. He has more than "very little" power. SaltySpitoon is a neutral diplomat. I haven't seen him making a biased statement/opinion. Furthermore, it wasn't an opinion, it was a statement.
 "Matter of debate"? You said a false things without even discussing. Obviously, the post you made against staff is not in a "discussing" or "debating" style, it is made on your feelings and your conclusion. So whatever you conclude aren't false? You are spreading disinformation but I am wishing it to be a misinformation. Hope this wish can be fulfilled.

3) I looked meaning of "abusive" but it isn't fitting here. According to *your version* of abuse, aren't you being an abuser? You started this anti-Vod war when you were removed from default trust list. Till that day, staffs are ok & DefaultTrust is ok. From that day forth, DefaultTrust is bad.

There need not be some master conspiracy plot for this to happen, just plain old nepotism which happens everywhere every day. The word conspiracy is bandied about by people who disagree with me and wish to marginalize my valid points about the inconsistent application of rules regarding the default trust system, and the trust system in general.

So you get to decide if my statements are false or not? Tell me, on what evidence do you base this conclusion on? Oh that's right, its just your opinion. I guess you get to have an opinion, but my opinions have to be checked with you and Vod before I can have them.

Re: 3
If you are going to criticize me for something, at least bother to check the chain of events that started this instead of just demonstrating your ignorance of the situation as well as your bias.

This is the order of events you did not bother to actually look at, and instead blindly swallowing Vods bullshit narrative.

1. I was removed from the default trust list. There are no rules about using the trust list anywhere in the forum. I am not sure how I am supposed to know that the trust list is a broken system if there are no rules and the first time I break one I am removed. Additionally since there are no rules posted anywhere, all I have to go by is the example of other users on the default trust, such as Vod, and by that metric my rating seemed to be acceptable.

2. I made this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg9495269#msg9495269
 In it I explain how the application of the rules are unwritten, unspoken, and not uniformly enforced. I used Vod's abusive ratings as an example of some one who repeatedly does the things I was accused of one time, but is not removed from the default trust. This is not a war on Vod, this is me being critical of his behavior as well as the inaction by staff while they played a close role in making sure I was removed from the trust list, even going so far as to create a new feature to make sure I was not again added to the default trust list by other level one users.

3. Vod did not like the fact that I was bringing attention to his abusive behavior and decided he would prove that he does not abuse his position on the default trust by leaving me a negative rating. I made a thread about it here, the first time I called for his removal from the default trust. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0
When confronted and asked to quote the supposed lie I made about him he waivers and delays for several pages, then decides on using a statement that I made in the thread about his negative rating that was made AFTER he left it.

4. After public pressure he changed the rating to a neutral, but after I dared to challenge his unilateral royal decree that MSDN keysellers are now not allowed to trade on the forum, he decided he would again use his position on the default trust in an attempt to again try to silence me from being critical of his actions. Here in a thread about the keysellers some one comments on his neutral rating for me and decides to make a show of the fact that he turned it into a negative. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890378#msg10890378
I don't know how he could make it any more clear he did this because I was critical of his actions, not for "lying" about him.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying?

You can if you aren't telling a lie. Partial yes. It is still not allowed.

BS comes from everyones' mouth. It is clear is about you. Feedback you left and feedback Vod left starts from same end but reach at different place. There is slight difference in them.

"people who have built up reputations" is also you. Nobody silenced you for good things you did. You still can. Sadly, you are still going for makeup conspiracy theories. Bitcointalk is centralized and hence, trust system. This centralized power doesn't give Vod special status.

Just because you do not agree with my statements does not make me a liar. It is a pretty basic concept. You don't have to agree with me, but you don't just get to declare me a liar because you don't like or agree with what I said. Additionally this forum is supposedly in support of free speech, but I guess it only counts as long as you don't get Vods panties in a twist.

"People who built up reputations" is a lot of people on this forum, and most of them will not speak up for fear of having their reputations assaulted by asshats like Vod who freak out and abuse their privileged positions to punish people for saying things they don't like.  Actually "users who done once" as you put it was referring to Beastlymac, who was removed from the default trust for negative marking some one who was trying to extort him for posting lies about him.  Its not ok for Beastlymac in a clearly justified situation, but it is ok for Vod. Vods position on the default trust list, that is by definition special status. He has the ability to damage peoples reputations by simply leaving one negative trust rating being on the default trust list. I keep hearing about these extra standards that people on the default trust list should have, yet people like Vod who have demonstrated they are repeatedly willing to abuse the position are allowed to stay on it.

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

This isn't upsetting Vod, you are telling a lie about whole staffs which is bad for whole forum.

Tell me, what proof do you have that what I said is a lie? Oh yeah, that's right, its YOUR OPINION. The fact that your opinion is in opposition to mine does not make me a liar, it just makes you dishonest for trying to apply that label because you don't like what I have to say. Furthermore, please tell me exactly how one person stating their opinion is going to harm the staff or the forum. I will wait.

[tommorisonwebdesign]

I don't mean to say "TL;DR" but give me a break. You are such a whiner. Reading all of those posts made me want to stop reading this thread. Only reason I read it was because it was linked to OP's signature.

[TECSHARE]

I don't mean to say "TL;DR" but give me a break. You are such a whiner. Reading all of those posts made me want to stop reading this thread. Only reason I read it was because it was linked to OP's signature.

Get back to me after you have spent 3 years building a rep here then maybe your opinion will mean something to me. Otherwise you are just another disinterested asshole in the peanut gallery taking pot shots for your own entertainment.

[BitcoinEXpress]

I don't mean to say "TL;DR" but give me a break. You are such a whiner. Reading all of those posts made me want to stop reading this thread. Only reason I read it was because it was linked to OP's signature.

Get back to me after you have spent 3 years building a rep here then maybe your opinion will mean something to me. Otherwise you are just another disinterested asshole in the peanut gallery taking pot shots for your own entertainment.

He may be a newbie but he nailed you.

You are a trust rating abusing whiny bitch which is why you were removed from DT.


As always warm regards


~BCX~