Bitcoin Forum
July 23, 2019, 06:32:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: TheButterZone Removed From Default Trust  (Read 6587 times)
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 08:49:12 AM
 #41

Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me.

And then you'll still be screwed by people who rely on DefaultTrust, who will see you listed as untrusted and not deal with you.
1563863566
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563863566

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563863566
Reply with quote  #2

1563863566
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563863566
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563863566

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563863566
Reply with quote  #2

1563863566
Report to moderator
Wardrick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
Last edit: November 17, 2014, 05:27:49 PM by Wardrick
 #42

Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.

P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?

Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please.

Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke.  How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?
I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner.

Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0)  is just fine and the trust system should just be removed.
Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me.

At any rate you will never get Butterzone off of the trust list because he was put there by Badbear and Theymos trusting him, and if it is one of their cronies they get a pass from things like this. I was simply trusted by some one easily manipulated by the staff, and not a part of the boys club here so I was expendable. This is a perfect example of how policy is selectively enforced around here.

Manually researching your trading partners isn't an efficient method of trading unless you're not doing a lot of trades. If it was every other forum or place that is a trading platform would of adopted that method now instead of either using a feedback system (only for trading) or having a reputation sub forum where people post successful trades. In either situation escrow is mandatory or it's a popular option. Researching your trading partners is good for big trades but isn't needed for 90% of the trades that go on here (Even though it's always a good thing to do), so IMO that's not a rational solution nor should minding your own business contribute to the misuse of the trust system to people who have a higher ranking for it. The trust system right now is actually just an anonymous wall where people can post stuff about you on your own page and you can't do anything about.

Well considering it is your money to lose, it is your loss if you choose to be lax in verifying your trading partners. In reality its not that hard and only takes a few minutes in most cases. Furthermore escrow can't protect both parties in all situations. If I buy a $100 gift card from someone and use escrow, but the gift code was bought using a stolen credit card number for example, I lose that value regardless of escrow because I have no way to determine the legitimacy of the code itself, only the user. Any criticisms of the use of the trust system will be completely subjective and impossible to moderate in any fair manner that would prevent favoritism or abuse. The trust system isn't just some "anonymous wall" where people can post things about you. It is designed to give more weight to people who have already over a long period of time demonstrated their trustworthiness, not random anonymous people. Also take note of the fact that all the mods and staff are completely ignoring this thread. They handle things a little differently when it is one of their own.

I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback from someone like Tbz I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this.

Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me.

And then you'll still be screwed by people who rely on DefaultTrust, who will see you listed as untrusted and not deal with you.
^^^
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1388


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 05:24:54 PM
 #43


I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this.
You can disagree all you like. Just because you want something or think it is unfair doesn't make it realistic or obtainable. As far as admins contacting you, that is very convenient that they chose to keep this a private affair for their buddies but are willing to turn this process into a giant public shit show for anyone else that isn't in their buddy club. Funny how when this happened to me not a single mod or admin PMed me about it, they simply attempted to shame me publicly. At any rate nothing is going to happen to Butterzone. Some are more equal than others.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
Wardrick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 05:41:22 PM
 #44


I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this.
You can disagree all you like. Just because you want something or think it is unfair doesn't make it realistic or obtainable. As far as admins contacting you, that is very convenient that they chose to keep this a

I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this.
You can disagree all you like. Just because you want something or think it is unfair doesn't make it realistic or obtainable. As far as admins contacting you, that is very convenient that they chose to keep this a private affair for their buddies but are willing to turn this process into a giant public shit show for anyone else that isn't in their buddy club. Funny how when this happened to me not a single mod or admin PMed me about it, they simply attempted to shame me publicly. At any rate nothing is going to happen to Butterzone. Some are more equal than others.
private affair for their buddies but are willing to turn this process into a giant public shit show for anyone else that isn't in their buddy club. Funny how when this happened to me not a single mod or admin PMed me about it, they simply attempted to shame me publicly. At any rate nothing is going to happen to Butterzone. Some are more equal than others.

I've never contacted admins with a bullshit request or made a thread about something like this that isn't fully justified, and I rarely talk to staff. I don't think it's just me that thinks it's unfair but a lot of people, you even said yourself the system is unfair with the way it can be used. People who have a higher feedback weight need to use it responsibly or they shouldn't have it because it's not helping th site in any way. I don't know what happened in your situation and I'm on my phone right now but I think the staff would of responded to it if it was justified. TheButterZone has already been removed from the default trust list of a staff member. I don't think staff won't act on matters like this if it seems reasonable to them.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1388


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 06:17:36 PM
Last edit: November 17, 2014, 07:36:18 PM by TECSHARE
 #45



I've never contacted admins with a bullshit request or made a thread about something like this that isn't fully justified, and I rarely talk to staff. I don't think it's just me that thinks it's unfair but a lot of people, you even said yourself the system is unfair with the way it can be used. People who have a higher feedback weight need to use it responsibly or they shouldn't have it because it's not helping th site in any way. I don't know what happened in your situation and I'm on my phone right now but I think the staff would of responded to it if it was justified. TheButterZone has already been removed from the default trust list of a staff member. I don't think staff won't act on matters like this if it seems reasonable to them.
What bullshit requests? You might feel that this is fully justified, and unfair, but my point stands. The feedback system will be "abused" NO MATTER WHAT. There will ALWAYS be some one claiming left trust was unjust and demanding its removal. What defines "abuse" is open to interpretation and is yet another facet of the trust system that can be abused.

Instead of letting users define who is trusted in a decentralized fashion, Theymos has opted to moderate other peoples trust via deciding himself and dictating to others who can and can not be in "his" trust tree. I argue all that is happening is that Theymos is protecting the integrity of the default trust as a way to solidify his own influence over the supposedly decentralized and unmoderated system. If Theymos is dictating to people who are on his trust tree, then its not a trust network, it is a list of Theymos's buddies. Additionally bowing to the demands of individuals who instigate issues, then complain to the staff/mods once they have repercussions for their actions sets an extremely dangerous precedent of policy around here that I GUARANTEE will result in a flood of such harassment, baiting, and following accusations. The end result, in effect trolls have designed a way to make the staff/mods tear the community apart for them, and they refuse to admit they are enforcing a failed policy.

Basically what I am trying to get across to you is, regardless of it being right or wrong, demanding some central authority fix your problems for you is the downfall of every supposedly decentralized system. The fact that they obliged now demonstrates that it is in fact a completely centralized system where one man chooses who is and is not allowed to have "influence".

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:41:57 PM
 #46

People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight

Yes, and this should occur naturally, because such people naturally obtain good feedback of their own.  This gets weighted into how their own feedback is rated by a trust system.

Without saying anything derogatory about anyone in charge of DefaultTrust, it is absolutely impossible for any person to make decisions other people should trust about things like this, when they clearly have their own conflicting interests, but DefaultTrust is basically rammed down everyone's throat.  Many people don't even realize it should be turned off.

The history of people who have been on that DefaultTrust list who shouldn't have been is so long and familiar to anyone here who has paid any attention that I need not recount it.  Its history speaks for itself.

It benefits nobody except the people on it.
Wardrick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 01:44:39 AM
Last edit: November 18, 2014, 02:29:48 AM by Wardrick
 #47



I've never contacted admins with a bullshit request or made a thread about something like this that isn't fully justified, and I rarely talk to staff. I don't think it's just me that thinks it's unfair but a lot of people, you even said yourself the system is unfair with the way it can be used. People who have a higher feedback weight need to use it responsibly or they shouldn't have it because it's not helping th site in any way. I don't know what happened in your situation and I'm on my phone right now but I think the staff would of responded to it if it was justified. TheButterZone has already been removed from the default trust list of a staff member. I don't think staff won't act on matters like this if it seems reasonable to them.
What bullshit requests? You might feel that this is fully justified, and unfair, but my point stands. The feedback system will be "abused" NO MATTER WHAT. There will ALWAYS be some one claiming left trust was unjust and demanding its removal. What defines "abuse" is open to interpretation and is yet another facet of the trust system that can be abused.

Instead of letting users define who is trusted in a decentralized fashion, Theymos has opted to moderate other peoples trust via deciding himself and dictating to others who can and can not be in "his" trust tree. I argue all that is happening is that Theymos is protecting the integrity of the default trust as a way to solidify his own influence over the supposedly decentralized and unmoderated system. If Theymos is dictating to people who are on his trust tree, then its not a trust network, it is a list of Theymos's buddies. Additionally bowing to the demands of individuals who instigate issues, then complain to the staff/mods once they have repercussions for their actions sets an extremely dangerous precedent of policy around here that I GUARANTEE will result in a flood of such harassment, baiting, and following accusations. The end result, in effect trolls have designed a way to make the staff/mods tear the community apart for them, and they refuse to admit they are enforcing a failed policy.

Basically what I am trying to get across to you is, regardless of it being right or wrong, demanding some central authority fix your problems for you is the downfall of every supposedly decentralized system. The fact that they obliged now demonstrates that it is in fact a completely centralized system where one man chooses who is and is not allowed to have "influence".

An authority figure on this forum are the only people who are able to fix the problem unless everyone stops misusing the trust system. The people carrying heavier feedback weight should display better judgment than to misuse their powers because of trolls. I'm sure most of the people on the forum could care less if they get unwarranted feedback from someone and it doesn't show up as "Trusted Feedback" for them, but the fact it comes up as trusted and shows -6/-1 and the problem here is so minimal that it shows that some of the people with that power don't have the correct judgment to hold it. IDK why you keep trying to get a point across to me because I've told you about 10 times that I'm not looking for a moderated system or for staff to take time to moderate the trust system. I'm asking for TBZ's default trust to be removed as well as anybody else who's misused it (Which will take about 10 minutes) and stop them from having the power to carry the -6/-1 feedback weight. The people who demonstrated that they're not responsible for holding that status should be removed and members feedback should carry an equal weight except for a handful of members and the trustworthiness of someone's feedback will come naturally like DarkMule just said.

Until a better idea comes out or the trust system is removed all together, this is the best thing to do. What exactly would your plan of action be for handling the trust system? Because from your previous posts you didn't agree with the removal of the trust system and you're not agreeing to keep the trust system so it's hard to determine your stance on this situation.


People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight

Yes, and this should occur naturally, because such people naturally obtain good feedback of their own.  This gets weighted into how their own feedback is rated by a trust system.

Without saying anything derogatory about anyone in charge of DefaultTrust, it is absolutely impossible for any person to make decisions other people should trust about things like this, when they clearly have their own conflicting interests, but DefaultTrust is basically rammed down everyone's throat.  Many people don't even realize it should be turned off.

The history of people who have been on that DefaultTrust list who shouldn't have been is so long and familiar to anyone here who has paid any attention that I need not recount it.  Its history speaks for itself.

It benefits nobody except the people on it.

I agree on most of this although I'm not sure how default trust was set up or how you get the -6/-1 feedback weight. I think it was originally intended for their to be community moderators that weren't necessarily staff that helped the site, but when it started being misused nothing was done about it. On eBay I would get the same feedback from someone with 160000 positive feedback or someone with 5 and this is how I think the trust system here should work. I don't think having the trust system automatically weigh people's trust would help because I think there'd be a lot of ways around it and in a lot of situations a member as active as another member but with less trades feedback should equal the same thing. If there was a way that you could only post negative feedback if there was a button to initiate a trade with the user I think that would really help, but then negative feedback couldn't be given to people who are running Ponzi schemes or are trying to scam people. There's still the scam accusation sub forum though.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1388


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 05:58:01 AM
 #48

Way to just skip over everything I wrote and just repeat yourself and continue to demand some one fix your problems for you rather than just avoiding them to begin with. There will ALWAYS be people demanding trust moderation as long as the mods/staff bend to such demands. There will ALWAYS be users on the default trust that feel their trust rating was justified in spite of the opinions of Theymos and others. My solution is that the trust remain UNMODERATED and self balancing. People who abuse the system will not have as much influence because they use negative trust too flippantly. My solution is to DO LESS.

Your solution requires the whole forum system be overhauled to meet your satisfaction. The only reason the trust list is broken is because it is purported to be an "unmoderated" and decentralized system of trust, but in reality a single central authority is deciding who gets to have influence within this system regardless how how trustworthy people have demonstrated themselves to be. The trust system is being used as a tool for Theymos to maintain his complete influence over the trust system, not as a simple register of who is and who is not trustworthy dependent on user variables. He is claiming it is an unmoderated system while he personally picks and chooses who gets to be on the lsit.

This is disingenuous, and by no means accurate, or fair for people who have worked very hard for the community's trust. Instead Theymos would rather use it as a tool of punitive enforcement so he can coerce people to do what he wants regardless of what it costs users. After all why would Theymos give a shit if people harass trusted users? It doesn't effect him directly. However people using the trust system in a way that erodes his personal authority on this forum is an unforgivable offense. As a result he coerces people using the default trust list as a tool to extort users into acting how he decides under threat of losing ones hard earned reputation, and not even for trading dishonestly, just because Theymos feels like he and his buddy's look bad by being associated with you. In short trolls have learned to turn Theymo's ego against him and use him as a tool of destruction against this community, and instead of admitting this policy is a failure he will continue to rip it apart with his own hands under the guise of protecting the integrity of the trust system.


Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
hilariousandco
Below Average Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1625


1 merit = 1 hug


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 06:27:12 AM
 #49

Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.

Looks like he has been removed so you can stop with your paranoia now, though something tells me this won't happen anytime soon.

TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1388


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 06:45:20 AM
 #50

Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.

Looks like he has been removed so you can stop with your paranoia now, though something tells me this won't happen anytime soon.
Pointing out hypocrisy has nothing to do with paranoia. That is a very disingenuous way of associating my claims with "conspiracy theory" even though there is very real and observable special treatment for buddy's of Theymos. Furthermore removing Butterzone is pretty retarded. All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
hilariousandco
Below Average Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1625


1 merit = 1 hug


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 07:04:09 AM
 #51

Is there hypocrisy? You were claiming butterzone was a buddy of theymos and Badbear and won't be removed but now he has you're still complaining and are now trying to spin it another way. Whatever happened or does happen you will invent a conspiracy here. You've made and continue to make several hypocritical claims whilst sprinkling it with paranoia so I don't see why you're so concerned with hypocrisy anyway. Seems you don't mind unless it effects you. You're now just doing what every single person does after doing something wrong and something then doesn't go their way or to their liking.

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1717



View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 07:06:02 AM
 #52

Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.

Looks like he has been removed so you can stop with your paranoia now, though something tells me this won't happen anytime soon.
Pointing out hypocrisy has nothing to do with paranoia. That is a very disingenuous way of associating my claims with "conspiracy theory" even though there is very real and observable special treatment for buddy's of Theymos. Furthermore removing Butterzone is pretty retarded. All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.
The two people who had TBZ on their trust list were mods. They obviously no longer wish to have the potential personal trust liability associated with having him on their trust list.

I don't think either Wardrick or armis are "buddies" with theymos, at least I have not seen any actual evidence of such.

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Click Here to See Alex Morgan Twerking||2nd Video
(Videos Suchmoon doesn’t want you to see)
Wardrick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 07:18:39 AM
Last edit: November 18, 2014, 07:30:50 AM by Wardrick
 #53

Way to just skip over everything I wrote and just repeat yourself and continue to demand some one fix your problems for you rather than just avoiding them to begin with. There will ALWAYS be people demanding trust moderation as long as the mods/staff bend to such demands. There will ALWAYS be users on the default trust that feel their trust rating was justified in spite of the opinions of Theymos and others. My solution is that the trust remain UNMODERATED and self balancing. People who abuse the system will not have as much influence because they use negative trust too flippantly. My solution is to DO LESS.

Your solution requires the whole forum system be overhauled to meet your satisfaction. The only reason the trust list is broken is because it is purported to be an "unmoderated" and decentralized system of trust, but in reality a single central authority is deciding who gets to have influence within this system regardless how how trustworthy people have demonstrated themselves to be. The trust system is being used as a tool for Theymos to maintain his complete influence over the trust system, not as a simple register of who is and who is not trustworthy dependent on user variables. He is claiming it is an unmoderated system while he personally picks and chooses who gets to be on the lsit.

This is disingenuous, and by no means accurate, or fair for people who have worked very hard for the community's trust. Instead Theymos would rather use it as a tool of punitive enforcement so he can coerce people to do what he wants regardless of what it costs users. After all why would Theymos give a shit if people harass trusted users? It doesn't effect him directly. However people using the trust system in a way that erodes his personal authority on this forum is an unforgivable offense. As a result he coerces people using the default trust list as a tool to extort users into acting how he decides under threat of losing ones hard earned reputation, and not even for trading dishonestly, just because Theymos feels like he and his buddy's look bad by being associated with you. In short trolls have learned to turn Theymo's ego against him and use him as a tool of destruction against this community, and instead of admitting this policy is a failure he will continue to rip it apart with his own hands under the guise of protecting the integrity of the trust system.


Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.
I feel you're the one repeating yourself over and over again and making everything a larger deal than it actually is. It doesn't matter if you earn your trust, if you're provided with a higher rank but you don't use it responsibly you shouldnt have it. There's no excuse for misuse of the trust system and negative feedback is only suppose to be used for scamming or potential scammers. The butterzone continued to leave me negative feedback after I had apologized for something I knew I shouldn't of but I did anyway because I saw that it upset him for some reason. The trust system is broken because it allows people with a higher rank to misuse it for their personal benefit and not for the benefit of the site and because people use it as a form of attack instead of what it's suppose to be used for.

Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.

Looks like he has been removed so you can stop with your paranoia now, though something tells me this won't happen anytime soon.
Pointing out hypocrisy has nothing to do with paranoia. That is a very disingenuous way of associating my claims with "conspiracy theory" even though there is very real and observable special treatment for buddy's of Theymos. Furthermore removing Butterzone is pretty retarded. All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.
The two people who had TBZ on their trust list were mods. They obviously no longer wish to have the potential personal trust liability associated with having him on their trust list.

I don't think either Wardrick or armis are "buddies" with theymos, at least I have not seen any actual evidence of such.

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

This and what hilariousandco said are both very true.
hilariousandco
Below Average Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1625


1 merit = 1 hug


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 07:29:13 AM
 #54

You added this bit in after I posted:

The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

Isn't abusing the default trusted position damaging the community? And funny you bring up egos as it was your ego that got you into this mess in the first place. What you really want is for nobody else's "ego" to get involved or make the rules but yours. Everything was fine and dandy apparently until somebody said something you didn't like and you abused your weight of the default feedback to try get your own way. If default trust is such an issue just disregard it, but it seems it was fine whilst you were on it.

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it. Users often complain that people on the default trust have a monopoly over it and that they're free to leave feedback for whoever they don't like but if it's unjust clearly this isn't the case and the community responded appropriately. I think this is a good thing.  You can't have it both ways. 

TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 08:56:27 AM
 #55

TheButterZone, no your reputation has not been irreparably damaged. It wasn't damaged at all until you started making a fool out of yourself in this very thread.
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010


Pay with SegWit!


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 10:08:03 AM
 #56

The reading comprehension force is strong with this forum, LMFAO.

Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it.

...

PS: I either forgot or was unaware I was on default trust. Not that there absolutely has to be a crosslinking, but theymos didn't rate me on http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=TheButterZone&sign=ANY&type=RECV - if it will stop Wardrick's libelous posting pattern, I have no attachment to being on DT.

Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4).

and then there's this:

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate.

My rating (have you even read it?) is absolutely an indication of my distrust of an aggressive libeler who offered nothing but a hollow BS apology incapable of reversing their own damage. The internet caches everything, dontcha know. So, Quickseller, would you like to have Wardrick run a "joke" scam on the community by trying to paint YOU as a murderer, drug dealer, and/or borderline sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder next? I hope you have absolutely nothing to ever offer bitcoindom as "Quickseller", or have a backup nick like Wardrick has Graven, that you can rinse and repeat with.

TheButterZone, no your reputation has not been irreparably damaged. It wasn't damaged at all until you started making a fool out of yourself in this very thread.

Revisionist history BS, the First Class ticket to ignore lists!

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1388


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 10:34:43 AM
 #57

You added this bit in after I posted:

The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

Isn't abusing the default trusted position damaging the community? And funny you bring up egos as it was your ego that got you into this mess in the first place. What you really want is for nobody else's "ego" to get involved or make the rules but yours. Everything was fine and dandy apparently until somebody said something you didn't like and you abused your weight of the default feedback to try get your own way. If default trust is such an issue just disregard it, but it seems it was fine whilst you were on it.

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it. Users often complain that people on the default trust have a monopoly over it and that they're free to leave feedback for whoever they don't like but if it's unjust clearly this isn't the case and the community responded appropriately. I think this is a good thing.  You can't have it both ways.

Yet you have it both ways, picking and choosing who does and does not get to have influence in the trust system. It has basically now come to a point where people who have dedicated enough time here to be really trusted now are SO TRUSTED that it is unacceptable for them to even defend themselves, and you expect them to sit by idly and be harassed. You sure aren't doing anything about it when it is reported, but again you "have the right to interpret the rules" now don't you. Why would you care if I am being harassed, no skin off of your back.

I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?

You added this bit in after I posted:

The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

Isn't abusing the default trusted position damaging the community? And funny you bring up egos as it was your ego that got you into this mess in the first place. What you really want is for nobody else's "ego" to get involved or make the rules but yours. Everything was fine and dandy apparently until somebody said something you didn't like and you abused your weight of the default feedback to try get your own way. If default trust is such an issue just disregard it, but it seems it was fine whilst you were on it.

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it. Users often complain that people on the default trust have a monopoly over it and that they're free to leave feedback for whoever they don't like but if it's unjust clearly this isn't the case and the community responded appropriately. I think this is a good thing.  You can't have it both ways.

Your "abuse" of the trust system is another mans legitimate use of it. Trying to dictate the content of the reason for the trust left is asinine and not something that can be equitably enforced. Furthermore the staff catering to people who are clearly acting in a provocative manner then making complaints to put trusted members in a defensive position is far more destructive than a few posts from me. All you can see is what you see every day moderating. Similar to a cop who just starts seeing every citizen as the enemy you start to see every user whom you have taken action against as making unjust complaints. You don't see I am trying to point out a problem you are creating for yourself and others in this community because you would rather be correct than right.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
hilariousandco
Below Average Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1625


1 merit = 1 hug


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 11:00:54 AM
Last edit: November 18, 2014, 02:38:11 PM by hilariousandco
 #58

You sure aren't doing anything about it when it is reported, but again you "have the right to interpret the rules" now don't you. Why would you care if I am being harassed, no skin off of your back.

When what is reported? Someone stating that you're unlikely to sell something? Saying something you don't like isn't against the rules and the report won't be acted upon unless it does. You can say you were 'harassed' and your reputation is being 'tarnished' or whatever but these are all just exaggerations to suit your argument. You see, you would've been fine with us bending the rules on this occasion to remove the posts you reported (even though they broke no rules), but I doubt you would've appreciated staff removing any posts of yours that someone didn't like.

I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?

The feedback left is unmoderated, but you were obviously aware of the nature of the system in that people get added to and removed from the list from time to time and you were seemingly fine with that until recently. It's a working trust network until you get removed for abusing the trust then it's suddenly an authoritative bitcoin Illuminati buddy list. Can't have it both ways. If theymos or any other admins really wanted to abuse the system then they would just remove the offending feedback, but I think the system worked well in this example contrary to your belief. What exactly do they have to gain from removing you? It's a good warning to others on there; make sure to not let personal feelings get in the way if you've been trusted with a position of power or your position may be reconsidered.

Wardrick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 08:27:12 PM
 #59

Thank you to the administators and staff who handled this situation and removed thebutterzone from the default trust list and reduced his feedback weight. Misuse of the trust system should not be tolerated especially for people who are suppose to be setting an example for the forum. I'm glad this was handled appropriately and this shows that if you have a legitimate and justified problem the staff and admins will take care of it. Hopefully in the future this will keep the people with higher feedback weight from misusing it.
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010


Pay with SegWit!


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 09:55:23 PM
 #60

Where was that contract where I agreed to set an example for the forum? Oh, it's right next to the one that said that as a decent human being, I agree not to libel people as murderers, borderline sociopaths with narcissistic personality disorder, etc. (and then play the victim and further accuse my victims of "misuse".)

Nemo me impune lacessit.

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!