Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust

[Quickseller]

Okay, so let's say for arguments sake that he is a "troll", can you link him being a troll to it being necessary to not be trusted? Or can you link him trolling to him trying to scam?

[1713530409]

1713530409

[1713530409]

1713530409

[1713530409]

1713530409

[1713530409]

1713530409

[1713530409]

1713530409

[1713530409]

1713530409

[NotLambchop]

...
LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect.

Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up.

"Winding people up" is exactly what needs to happen when said people are getting fleeced.
Looking at the date, I remember why you've left me that vindictive feedback:  I interfered with your pimping of your AM "investment," which continues to tank to this day

@Quickseller: Mabsark leaving me negative trust is well within the forum rules.  The problem is not Mabsark, but the rules.  Attempting to grow a relevant trust system from a default trust seed is fundamentally, conceptually flawed.

Edit re. "feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion":

The chart starts on June 11th, when I got the vote of no confidence from Mabsark for suggesting that AM prices would tank:

[BadBear]

Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

[Wardrick]

Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?

Well since it was unwarranted in the first place to retaliate with negative feedback I think it's fair to change it to a neutral rating or remove it. Just because someone else abuses the trust system doesn't mean you should too, that's one of the points of being on default trust and having a higher feedback weight, to not misuse it and use it to point out scams and scammers. If you want to keep your default trust position I suggest you remove it and rethink the ones you've left if they would hold up when a person makes a thread like this, whether it's proof or your train of thought that led up to your decision.

[Mabsark]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

[Beastlymac]

I feel that anyone that uses a position on default trust to belittle other people or uses the position in an attempt to boost their own sales or boost their feedback in the way i think canary is doing by putting people that are low rank in his circle of trust as it inflates his manufactured trust number in an attempt to make himself seem more trustworthy. I think that anyone that uses default trust for personal gain should be removed.

[SpanishSoldier]

-snip-

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

I wish you really keep your word theymos. The motive of CanaryInTheMine & Mabshark is crystal clear from multiple evidences that have been talked about in this thread. Here is just another evidence...

Someone preferred Bimain backed Hashnest and see how he is pushing him to AM hash through his sig...

you dont, its called calculated risk. and what i would do is actually invest in actual asic producing co like bitmain.

bitmain has their own cloud services called hashnest, which if you do more homework is only legit cloud site on the market i believe. everything else is a gamble in my observation.

You need to do more homework. I suggest looking at my sig for starters then reading Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread.

The way CanaryInTheMine is farming his trust is already discussed. What more evidence can we ask for to remove these people from DefaultTrust ?

[BadBear]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

[Beastlymac]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

I think it shows that Canary should be at minimum moved down to level two of the trust tree so that his feedback left doesn't have as great an effect. As he uses it now for influencing how people on this forum are able to engage in business. I am sure if you look at the way he has used trust ratings you will see that he has used them in a manner that helps him profit and i think when money is part of the equation when deciding to trust certain people that it induces a form of bias that is obvious in the actions that canary has engaged in and i think that someone who uses that power to profit should be relinquished of the power. Much the same as the situation that i was in. I had a transaction that went wrong and the user and members of his family slandered me and blackmailed me and as a result of this i applied negative trust to his profile (neutral was not an option at the time) but he was able to get me removed (albeit through a web of lies that where later proved false reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=768105.0) my understanding was that i was removed because i "abused" my position on theymos trust tree although at the time it was the only option i had left. So i feel that anyone uses the trust network for personal gain should not be allowed to continue.

[RiverBoatBTC]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

So what about mine I asked nicely and even apploigized when I made a mistake?

[TECSHARE]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

[malaimult]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

[TECSHARE]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

[malaimult]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 

[TECSHARE]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 

You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.

[malaimult]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 

You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.

Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy

[TECSHARE]

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 

You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.

Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy

You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.

Theymos has no interest in justice being served. He has interest in his bottom line being protected, IE some are allowed to abuse more than others. People like me who aren't part of the boys club get excommunicated for not following orders. Someone like VOD can get on the forum and throw around negative trust like candy for the flimsiest of reasons almost daily, but your right... that single "questionable" negative trust I left certainly is reason to remove years of work and negate everything I have given to this community.

First they claim the trust system is unmoderated, now suddenly theymos is messing with individual ratings and commanding people to be removed from trust at threat of their own removal. So I guess my simple question is.. Do you really feel the user I left negative feedback for has more to add to this community? If not then this policy only punishes the ACTUAL PEOPLE who build real trust here by making them subject to these inquisitions by trolls and sock puppets.

[malaimult]

You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.

Let me get this straight. This person thought you were acting unfairly, he called you out on it, and you made it so his profile would be labeled as a scammer until he retracted his statements about you acting unfairly. Is this an accurate representation of what happened?

In other words, you want to be able to act unfairly and to allow no one to call you out on it.

If anything his trust rating should have been improved for calling out unfair business activity. What he was doing had nothing to do with him potentially scamming and therefore a negative trust rating is not warranted.

You seem to be complaining a lot about the fact that you were removed from default trust list, yet you fail to understand that your ratings given do not have anything to do with scamming or the ability to trust others and as a result are not accurate and should not be relied on

[NotLambchop]

Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.  I returned the favor, though have mixed feelings about it.

...
LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect.

Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up.

"Winding people up" is exactly what needs to happen when said people are getting fleeced.
Looking at the date, I remember why you've left me that vindictive feedback:  I interfered with your pimping of your AM "investment," which continues to tank to this day

@Quickseller: Mabsark leaving me negative trust is well within the forum rules.  The problem is not Mabsark, but the rules.  Attempting to grow a relevant trust system from a default trust seed is fundamentally, conceptually flawed.

Edit re. "feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion":

The chart starts on June 11th, when I got the vote of no confidence from Mabsark for suggesting that AM prices would tank:

[Mabsark]

So what about mine I asked nicely and even apploigized when I made a mistake?

You didn't ask nicely, you started spreading lies about the reasons I left that feedback after me specifically telling you that that wasn't the reason and telling you the actual reason. And given the shit going on with your account at the moment and the scam accusations against you, I see no reason to remove that feedback.

Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.

No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.