Who put VOd on such a high horse?

[takagari]

So suddenly I have a bad rating due to a post from March, that suddenly VOD decides to rep me on for lieing about my postal code.

No proof, no asking me anything. simply state's I've lied about my postal code and walks away.

Some tread in his sig about neg feedback for noobs and a one month cooling off period?

Seriously?

So now I need to prove to some random guy who from his feedback rating's seems to be on a witch hunt. for doing nothing but asking to buy a hulu account.
Which leaves me with a login and I'd of paid bitcoin... So ZERO risk to anyone helping me.

Guy's like that really do piss me off.

[1715011462]

1715011462

[michaeladair]

He done climbed up on his horse by himself. Have you tried to talk to him?

[takagari]

He done climbed up on his horse by himself. Have you tried to talk to him?

Sent two pm's.

But frankly I'm unsure why I should have to talk to him.

I simply stated I can't do the hulu credit card "hack" as my postal code has 000 in it.
and he declares that I'm lieing..

GOD forbid my postal code is something like R0E 0K0... Or wait...

Sorry, but this is the basic equivalent of a person walking up to you in a crowded building and yelling "Hey pretty sure this guy's here to rob you and lie, not sure but possibly!" than walking away. without ever having met you. So It's a bit of a piss off.
and looking at his trader history, seems he runs around the forums doing this.
Why he suddenly pulled up a thread from March though?

[applesRyummy]

I have to say this is one of Vod's stranger negative ratings. I think it was pretty clear why you were lying about your postal code, eg in order to use a service you would otherwise be unable to use.

Your overall trust is still positive so you wont have a trade with caution warning. When people look at your trust I don't think they would be concerned about trading with you because of what they said.

I would be interested to see what he says about why he gave this rating

[takagari]

I have to say this is one of Vod's stranger negative ratings. I think it was pretty clear why you were lying about your postal code, eg in order to use a service you would otherwise be unable to use.

Your overall trust is still positive so you wont have a trade with caution warning. When people look at your trust I don't think they would be concerned about trading with you because of what they said.

I would be interested to see what he says about why he gave this rating

I'm aware it won't come up but it's still there.
and I never stated my postal code, only that it contained 000, maybe he assumed no such postal codes exist in Canada?
Or for some other reason. I was simply trying to get a Hulu account from Canada

[TECSHARE]

The standard for leaving negative trust here on the forums has become dangerously low because of people like VOD running around "scambusting", but in reality just accusing anyone with little or no evidence and ruining their reputations preemptively. Is this not what neutral ratings were created for? This kind of behavior is not only pissing off new users and driving them away, but turning them into disgruntled trolls or scammers. Additionally this is the REAL driver for everyone's discontent with the abuse of the trust system, but in stead of cracking down on such frivolous use of the trust system the staff would rather just burn trusted members at the first accusation they receive to make it appear as if they don't tolerate such abuse when they clearly do. This kind of activity is extremely destructive to this community and does little to nothing to stop actual scams. How many valid accusations have to be lodged against VOD before his actions are checked? A dozen? Three dozen? Of course you can always just keep throwing trusted users into the witch hunt fire and pretend like this didn't happen yet again.

[takagari]

Well the guy has left a dozen feedbacks in the last few day's.
So it seems he has no life.

I'm unsure why the mod and admin team leave this so open.
Someone should not be allowed to leave feedback, good bad or neutral without having done a deal or been involved with a person.

He never even comment on the thread.

And posting a neutral that says "beware" is no better than leaving a negative.

[TECSHARE]

Well the guy has left a dozen feedbacks in the last few day's.
So it seems he has no life.

I'm unsure why the mod and admin team leave this so open.
Someone should not be allowed to leave feedback, good bad or neutral without having done a deal or been involved with a person.

He never even comment on the thread.

And posting a neutral that says "beware" is no better than leaving a negative.

At least a neutral will not turn your rating red and make everyone assume you are a scammer instantly.

[hilariousandco]

I have to say this is one of Vod's stranger negative ratings. I think it was pretty clear why you were lying about your postal code, eg in order to use a service you would otherwise be unable to use.

Yeah, this negative seems overkill here. A neutral at most but even that seems unnecessary. I'm sure vod will remove it.

I'm unsure why the mod and admin team leave this so open.
Someone should not be allowed to leave feedback, good bad or neutral without having done a deal or been involved with a person.

So scammers have to successfully scam before they get negative? That's not going to stop anyone from getting scammed, but people need to make sure there's reasonable evidence or behavior of a scam or fraud etc before they leave feedback.

[takagari]

I have to say this is one of Vod's stranger negative ratings. I think it was pretty clear why you were lying about your postal code, eg in order to use a service you would otherwise be unable to use.

Yeah, this negative seems overkill here. A neutral at most but even that seems unnecessary. I'm sure vod will remove it.

I'm unsure why the mod and admin team leave this so open.
Someone should not be allowed to leave feedback, good bad or neutral without having done a deal or been involved with a person.

So scammers have to successfully scam before they get negative? That's not going to stop anyone from getting scammed, but people need to make sure there's reasonable evidence or behavior of a scam or fraud etc before they leave feedback.

Well sometimes yes, user's should be able to pick up on the common things.
But I can agree flagging posts which clearly look like a scam isn't a bad idea. So it has it's room, but He seems to only visit the forums for this reason.

[Lethn]

While he's certainly caught quite a high number of potential scammers with a number of them complaining on the board, dare I ask why you were wanting to buy a Hulu account and why did you feel the need to lie about your post code if you were actually going to use it? I'm a great believer in innocent until proven guilty and I understand not wanting to give out real information on a purely digital transaction, I regularly fake my details for that and provide misleading information because in reality the company or person has no reason to require it. However there are some really shifty fuckers around here who always like to play innnocent and blame the victims in an attempt to manipulate people so don't be offended if I haven't immediately sided with you.

[takagari]

While he's certainly caught quite a high number of potential scammers with a number of them complaining on the board, dare I ask why you were wanting to buy a Hulu account and why did you feel the need to lie about your post code if you were actually going to use it? I'm a great believer in innocent until proven guilty and I understand not wanting to give out real information on a purely digital transaction, I regularly fake my details for that and provide misleading information because in reality the company or person has no reason to require it. However there are some really shifty fuckers around here who always like to play innnocent and blame the victims in an attempt to manipulate people so don't be offended if I haven't immediately sided with you.

I'm unsure where inlied about a god damn thing?

There's a method where you remove the letters from your real postal code and use your Canadian credit card.
you add two zeroes.

My postal.code is r0e0k0
If I remove the letters I get 000 if I add two more zeros.
I get 00000

Which won't work, so I was asking to buy an account with bitcoin from someone.
I simply made the statement to show I already tried my own credit card

But please, tell me where I lied to anyone or misrepresented my postal code or any anything else.

I simply said it didn't work as my postal code had 000

[Lethn]

Chances are then it will be due to which country or area you are from since all these 'official' streaming sites have incredibly stupid licensing laws, I recommend going through some proxies and use torrent sites instead if you're talking about the hulu service I'm thinking of. As for asking someone else to put their details on an account for you regardless of paying them Bitcoin that's dodgy as fuck and fraud, if something happens not only will it be pointless contacting support you could also get the person who registered you in trouble as well because they will have faked identities.

You're asking for a hell of a lot of unnecessary trouble for even bothering to come up with this.

[takagari]

using a vpn is not dodgy
the method i used is detailed here
http://support.unblock-us.com/customer/portal/articles/291534-i-do-not-have-a-us-credit-card-how-do-i-sign-up-for-hulu-plus-?b_id=530

and my original thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=490950.0

Is in fact actually asking

I'm Canadian looking to signup for Hulu,
The postal code trick doesn't work as my postal code has 000 in it Smiley

Anyone selling a card? maybe $100 with a valid USA Zip code?

OR anyone selling Hulu account.

Please PM me!!

So. Again. What did I do that was dodgy? I was really just trying to get a re loadable USA credit card with a valid address for buying my own subscription.

Or if possible someone who sold account (I've seen it done before)
But again. I'd like to know how I'm sketchy for lieing about a postal code, that I never even mentioned.

Unless he thinks I tried saying my postal code is 000, in which case, he's an idiot. and anyone who believe my postal code was actually 000 is an even larger idiot.

The point is. This guy seems to be up on some high horse, strutting around leaving negative feedback. without even investigating.
Or clarifying. an on top of that for some reason decided to TODAY, post negative rep on me

Lying about his postal code for some odd reason. Beware...

For a thread which hasn't seen activity since March 9th 2014.
So I guess he's gotten bored with nailing the new guy's and is now digging up shit that was likely on page 50 of the forums.

[TECSHARE]

using a vpn is not dodgy
the method i used is detailed here
http://support.unblock-us.com/customer/portal/articles/291534-i-do-not-have-a-us-credit-card-how-do-i-sign-up-for-hulu-plus-?b_id=530

and my original thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=490950.0

Is in fact actually asking

I'm Canadian looking to signup for Hulu,
The postal code trick doesn't work as my postal code has 000 in it Smiley

Anyone selling a card? maybe $100 with a valid USA Zip code?

OR anyone selling Hulu account.

Please PM me!!

So. Again. What did I do that was dodgy? I was really just trying to get a re loadable USA credit card with a valid address for buying my own subscription.

Or if possible someone who sold account (I've seen it done before)
But again. I'd like to know how I'm sketchy for lieing about a postal code, that I never even mentioned.

Unless he thinks I tried saying my postal code is 000, in which case, he's an idiot. and anyone who believe my postal code was actually 000 is an even larger idiot.

The point is. This guy seems to be up on some high horse, strutting around leaving negative feedback. without even investigating.
Or clarifying. an on top of that for some reason decided to TODAY, post negative rep on me

Lying about his postal code for some odd reason. Beware...

For a thread which hasn't seen activity since March 9th 2014.
So I guess he's gotten bored with nailing the new guy's and is now digging up shit that was likely on page 50 of the forums.

Everyone is so paranoid here that any inconsistency is grounds for scam accusations in their minds. IMO these people perpetrating this "scambusting" type activity are simply doing it to stoke their egos, because in the end the only person that can stop you from getting scammed is you. They might prevent a handful of the really dumb scammers from scamming temporarily, but thats about it. Additionally training everyone to take everyone eles's opinion rather than using your own critical thought to judge if someone is a scammer is training people to only trust those in authority (default trust list) while they scream about trusting no one. As a result no one is ever actually trusted because escrow is always used, therefore real trust networks are not formed any more. Using escrow doesn't prove somone trust worthy. Someone having an opportunity to steal from you and CHOOSING NOT TO  is actually how you build real trust. Combine this with time and escalated value of trades and you have a real trust network, not just meaningless green and red numbers.

This community has accepted the "trust sytem" over actual trust networks of individuals you have personally traded with. The key is KNOWING your trading partner, not being so paranoid you are fearful of everyone who says something a little off and accuse them of scamming. Frankly these "scambusters" are harming this community tremendously in order to protect careless and or stupid people who will get scammed anyway because they don't bother to research their trading partners. In effect this "Scambusting" type behavior is becoming a lot more destructive than the scams it supposedly protects us from. IMO this community has become so obsessed with punisment that they are no longer interested in actual justice or due process any more, only vengeance. Burn them all and let God sort it out.

[Quickseller]

Everyone is so paranoid here that any inconsistency is grounds for scam accusations in their minds. IMO these people perpetrating this "scambusting" type activity are simply doing it to stoke their egos, because in the end the only person that can stop you from getting scammed is you. They might prevent a handful of the really dumb scammers from scamming temporarily, but thats about it. Additionally training everyone to take everyone eles's opinion rather than using your own critical thought to judge if someone is a scammer is training people to only trust those in authority (default trust list) while they scream about trusting no one. As a result no one is ever actually trusted because escrow is always used, therefore real trust networks are not formed any more. Using escrow doesn't prove somone trust worthy. Someone having an opportunity to steal from you and CHOOSING NOT TO  is actually how you build real trust. Combine this with time and escalated value of trades and you have a real trust network, not just meaningless green and red numbers.

This community has accepted the "trust sytem" over actual trust networks of individuals you have personally traded with. The key is KNOWING your trading partner, not being so paranoid you are fearful of everyone who says something a little off and accuse them of scamming. Frankly these "scambusters" are harming this community tremendously in order to protect careless and or stupid people who will get scammed anyway because they don't bother to research their trading partners. In effect this "Scambusting" type behavior is becoming a lot more destructive than the scams it supposedly protects us from. IMO this community has become so obsessed with punishing scammers that they are no longer interested in actual justice or due process any more, only vengeance. Burn them all and let God sort it out.

I would disagree. There is one lender in the lending section that has started to give very high risk loans, including to people with negative trust without collateral (or insufficient collateral). As a result there have been a significant increase in the number of obvious loan scammers in the lending subform recently. Some of the loans have been repaid, however I am going to say that they were done so in order to give confidence to the scammers and to increase the willingness to give loans to scammers.

Most newer, inexperienced users/traders are not going to know how to properly spot a scam nor do they know how to otherwise protect themselves. The default trust system, at lest somewhat helps newer users determine who should be trusted and who should not be. The concept of sending a payment that cannot be disputed/charged back is not something that many people truly understand, therefore many people who are new to bitcoin will likely trade under the presumption they will have the same scam protections that payment methods like credit cards offer (and that they will obviously not receive when dealing with bitcoin). You are in a unique situation that you do not need to "send first" when trading with others therefore you have a much greater insight as to if someone is trying to scam you or not. Most other people do not have this luxury.

There have been a huge number of scams that relate to bitcoin both on this forum and off forum. It is in everyone's interest that owns bitcoin to prevent bitcoin related scams from happening because a high number of bitcoin scams means less confidence in bitcoin overall and a lower bitcoin price. It may or may not be appropriate for people to call out "scam" on the drop of a hat, however it is very appropriate for people to ask tough questions when they see questionable activity and if appropriate answers are not given to defiantly call out "scam"

[TECSHARE]

words

words

As I said previously, careless and or stupid people will be parted from their money no matter how many warnings we give them or how many users try to play whack-a-mole. When this community began there was no one really around "scambusting" like they do today. People had individual transactions, and if they went bad they were then themselves free to make accusations and it was generally judged on its merits. Since the community is much larger now and more filled with less technically proficient people, and more scammers this kind of individual attention to cases is restricted. Yet in spite of this the level of penalty enforcement has not decreased along with the decreased standard of evidence against users.

This results in a very divisive and destructive type of infighting that is counterproductive in building trust networks and simply results in making them a tool of extortion and harassment because everyone is ready to engage in a witch hunt. How do you think the first of us around here had to learn these things? We did it BY BUILDING OUR OWN TRUST NETWORKS, and taking managed and informed risks, not relying on green and red numbers. In the end all the scammer has to do is make a new name. Does playing whack-a-mole endlessly on random usernames really stop them?

What is an acceptable level of innocent people caught up in this? How much is an acceptable amount of their money, time, and effort burnt because of a careless false accusation? Can the cryptocoin community really afford to be burning people who want to honestly contribute now days? We are doing more to burn the users who want to contribute here than we are to punish the scammers. This policy is doing far more damage to this community than scammers ever could. And for what? Just to make the scammer change his username and try again.

[takagari]

This is horse shit. I have very little in positive, so because of this dip shit

Trust: -2: -1 / +1(1)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

How in the hell does one moron with a God complex get me to a -2 with a CAUTION warning?

On top of that, what give's him the right. and the complex that he simply get's to ignore me?

Sorry do I need to give a 1 month "cooling off period"

[hilariousandco]

Looks like someone removed their positive (or got demoted?). You had two or three positives before, right? I'll PM vod later if he doesn't remove it before.

[Quickseller]

words

words

As I said previously, careless and or stupid people will be parted from their money no matter how many warnings we give them or how many users try to play whack-a-mole. When this community began there was no one really around "scambusting" like they do today. People had individual transactions, and if they went bad they were then themselves free to make accusations and it was generally judged on its merits. Since the community is much larger now and more filled with less technically proficient people, and more scammers this kind of individual attention to cases is restricted. Yet in spite of this the level of penalty enforcement has not decreased along with the decreased standard of evidence against users.

This results in a very divisive and destructive type of infighting that is counterproductive in building trust networks and simply results in making them a tool of extortion and harassment because everyone is ready to engage in a witch hunt. How do you think the first of us around here had to learn these things? We did it BY BUILDING OUR OWN TRUST NETWORKS, and taking managed and informed risks, not relying on green and red numbers. In the end all the scammer has to do is make a new name. Does playing whack-a-mole endlessly on random usernames really stop them?

What is an acceptable level of innocent people caught up in this? How much is an acceptable amount of their money, time, and effort burnt because of a careless false accusation? Can the cryptocoin community really afford to be burning people who want to honestly contribute now days? We are doing more to burn the users who want to contribute here than we are to punish the scammers. This policy is doing far more damage to this community than scammers ever could. And for what? Just to make the scammer change his username and try again.

The current trust system will reduce the number of people who will carelessly send money to scammers. The default trust system makes it so newer users (and users who have little/no trading experience) to get somewhat of an idea as to how safe it is to trade with someone. Any potential trade with extreme caution tag would hopefully cause a newer user to do additional research prior to trading with someone and hopefully finding a trusted escrow provider who can provide some additional level of protection for both parties. This is especially true with newer users who receive negative trust as their reputation is worth nothing and can easily create a new account without such tag.

As I mentioned before it is always appropriate to ask the "tough" questions to someone trying to do business. If they are honest they should have no problem either answering such questions or being honest they either do not wish to answer or cannot answer such questions. If it is any of the later then they likely have something to hide and it is likely the fact that they are trying to in some way scam. Anyone operating legitimately has an incentive to answer the "tough" questions because doing so adds a layer of legitimacy to their business.

Playing wach-a-mole does stop the scammers because they either need to buy a new account (which takes money) or need to create a new account which comes with time intensive countermeasures against scamming and are largely ineffective for scamming. As I mentioned before decreasing the scam rate, even marginally will help the bitcoin economy and the chances of bitcoin's success.

As you become a more experienced trader you should rely less on the default trust network and rely on your own trust network. You should either update your trust list or remember in your head who is trustworthy and who is not. Once you are an experienced trader you should give out negative trust only when someone has either scammed or when they are attempting to scam, or appear to be likely to attempt to scam in the future. You should not give trust to anyone you have a personal disagreement with as anyone who trusts your opinion may not want to trade with such person in the future over something personal. I do use an alternate account to view someone's trust feedback from the point of view that someone sees it by "default" as well as looking at feedback from my own trust network. I will share my trust network, you (or anyone else) is free to create a similar trust network or to add myself to their trust list to stay up to date as to whose feedback I personally deem accurate

Code:

theymos
Gavin Andresen
gmaxwell
~TECSHARE
Vod
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
BadBear
Blazr
DannyHamilton
~jasonslow
escrow.ms
Stunna
DefaultTrust
hilariousandco
~redsn0w
OldScammerTag

Without some kind of "default" trust network then a newer trader is not going to have any way of knowing who they should trust and who they should not trust.

Any potential false accusation can be openly discussed here for anyone to see (as well as in the sales thread if an accusation is made via a posting instead of via trust). Any party potentially considering to trade with such person can take such discussion into consideration. Just because someone screams "scam" does not mean that something or someone is a scam, trust me I know from personal experience (I have had plenty of people be upset with me for various reasons that do not have to do with my potential to scam and have made false accusations against me, it did not negatively affect my ability to trade and if anything it highlighted my previous success).

This is horse shit. I have very little in positive, so because of this dip shit

Trust: -2: -1 / +1(1)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

When using the above trust network I see you as:

Code:

3: -1 / +3(3)

I do see you as you describe above when only using the default trust network. I find my trust network more accurate.

From the looks of it you do not trade very much so I would find it somewhat unlikely that you would be affected in ways other then ego (not that I am defending this apparent trust rating that is probably not warranted).

I think it would be very appropriate for Vod to chime in to give some kind of explanation regarding his trust report to the OP