Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules

[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.