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=915823.0When 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#msg10890378I 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.
