Redsn0w, negative/neutral/or no trust due to Escrow negligence?

[hilariousandco]

Thanks guys for yours opinion , in this forum I've learned if you make a mistake you will receive a ~negative feedback ( also if the "mistake" has been "recovered). It is strange , but it is how it works here. If the account has not been recovered I will sure would paid him , because I didn't want to ruin my reputation for 0.80 bitcoin.  However , sorry for the "trouble" that I've generated here, and thanks again.

Mistakes can cost people a lot of money here and people are right to question your ability as an escrow. It's easy to say in retrospect that you would've paid but your previous comments make me not so certain. 0.8 isn't much and it's possible you would have just paid it to save your rep but what if a signature campaign or an ipo goes bad next time where there's a lot more money at stake?

[redsn0w]

Thanks guys for yours opinion , in this forum I've learned if you make a mistake you will receive a ~negative feedback ( also if the "mistake" has been "recovered). It is strange , but it is how it works here. If the account has not been recovered I will sure would paid him , because I didn't want to ruin my reputation for 0.80 bitcoin.  However , sorry for the "trouble" that I've generated here, and thanks again.

Mistakes can cost people a lot of money here and people are right to question your ability as an escrow. It's easy to say in retrospect that you would've paid but your previous comments make me not so certain. 0.8 isn't much and it's possible you would have just paid it to save your rep but what if a signature campaign or an ipo goes bad next time where there's a lot more money at stake?

This is why I've stopped to provide new escrow services and try to complete the actuals , but I have received another negative feedback. I've tried to "demonstrate" or better repay my mistake and with the help of the admin and the other users the account was recovered.

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

[Vod]

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

[TECSHARE]

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Hey gaize I got an idea! Lets make some MORE infighting among trusted members. Clearly we need more of that. We can fix the scammers by shotgunning negatives everywhere so no need to worry about them.

[Vod]

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Hey gaize I got an idea! Lets make some MORE infighting among trusted members. Clearly we need more of that. We can fix the scammers by shotgunning negatives everywhere so no need to worry about them.

That's assuming we have the same intelligence as you.  I'm not so easily manipulated.   

[TECSHARE]

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Hey gaize I got an idea! Lets make some MORE infighting among trusted members. Clearly we need more of that. We can fix the scammers by shotgunning negatives everywhere so no need to worry about them.

That's assuming we have the same intelligence as you.  I'm not so easily manipulated.   

I am glad you got the point of my statement clearly, but hey why break for introspection when you can create MORE INFIGHTING.

[michaeladair]

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Hey gaize I got an idea! Lets make some MORE infighting among trusted members. Clearly we need more of that. We can fix the scammers by shotgunning negatives everywhere so no need to worry about them.

That's assuming we have the same intelligence as you.  I'm not so easily manipulated.   

I am glad you got the point of my statement clearly, but hey why break for introspection when you can create MORE INFIGHTING.

I had to lookup Infighting in my pokedex... never heard it before.

[TECSHARE]

I had to lookup Infighting in my pokedex... never heard it before.

Of course, why would you use a dictionary? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infighting

[michaeladair]

I had to lookup Infighting in my pokedex... never heard it before.

Of course, why would you use a dictionary? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infighting

You said we should have less fighting among trusted members. So you agree that Redsn0w shouldn't be begged, right?

[TECSHARE]

I had to lookup Infighting in my pokedex... never heard it before.

Of course, why would you use a dictionary? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infighting

You said we should have less fighting among trusted members. So you agree that Redsn0w shouldn't be begged, right?

IMO, redsn0w did indeed fuck up, but he fixed the situation and the harmed party seems to be satisfied. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THAT MATTERS. Everyone else engaging in a witchunt against him IMO is out of line and needs to get a life.

[--Encrypted--]

IMO, redsn0w did indeed fuck up, but he fixed the situation and the harmed party seems to be satisfied. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THAT MATTERS. Everyone else engaging in a witchunt against him IMO is out of line and needs to get a life.

there's something I don't understand here. I'm trying to and I'll start by asking this: do you agree that badbear should remove his neg trust?

[TECSHARE]

IMO, redsn0w did indeed fuck up, but he fixed the situation and the harmed party seems to be satisfied. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THAT MATTERS. Everyone else engaging in a witchunt against him IMO is out of line and needs to get a life.

there's something I don't understand here. I'm trying to and I'll start by asking this: do you agree that badbear should remove his neg trust?

I don't think he deserves negative trust from third parties no. I think if the harmed user wanted to leave negative feedback that would be appropriate. IMO this need for the staff to some how perfect the trust system by obsessively policing it is the very reason it has become so destructive. Their job is to POLICE THE FORUM, not the trust.

If they try to also police the trust they also bring their baggage from dealing with scammers, trolls, and spammers all day and act callously with little regard for anyone involved, and with little thought, because by their own admission they don't have time to be doing this. Furthermore they have no interest in the matter either way, and this is a sure way to prevent any kind of restorative justice where only the two involved parties negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. Instead of restorative justice they just meter out punishments and move on leaving both parties worse off than when they started.

[hilariousandco]

Why are staff members any different from 'regular' users? They can have valid opinions on this too, but I'm sensing you just don't like staff and the power you think it gives them. There are always two viewpoints to feedback and I'm on the fence on this situation. Is negative justified? Yes. Is it harsh? Possibly. Should it stay? Depends on what redsnow is planning. Many people have concerns about his ability to escrow and that has now been voiced after his error. Yes, the error was unfortunate and relatively small but one that still almost cost someone money and likely would have had a big, bad staff member not stepped in to sort it.

If they try to also police the trust they also bring their baggage from dealing with scammers, trolls, and spammers all day and act callously with little regard for anyone involved, and with little thought, because by their own admission they don't have time to be doing this.

This can apply to regular members too. In fact isn't this pretty much exactly what happend in your case as you got annoyed by someone you thought was troling/harassing you?

[--Encrypted--]

IMO, redsn0w did indeed fuck up, but he fixed the situation and the harmed party seems to be satisfied. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THAT MATTERS. Everyone else engaging in a witchunt against him IMO is out of line and needs to get a life.

there's something I don't understand here. I'm trying to and I'll start by asking this: do you agree that badbear should remove his neg trust?

I don't think he deserves negative trust from third parties no. I think if the harmed user wanted to leave negative feedback that would be appropriate. IMO this need for the staff to some how perfect the trust system by obsessively policing it is the very reason it has become so destructive. Their job is to POLICE THE FORUM, not the trust.

If they try to also police the trust they also bring their baggage from dealing with scammers, trolls, and spammers all day and act callously with little regard for anyone involved, and with little thought, because by their own admission they don't have time to be doing this.

ah I see. for a second there I thought that you agreed that third parties should leave negative feedback on redsn0w if they feel like it, yet telling them to stop doing the witch hunt when michaeladairm asked you.

the off-topic replies kinda threw me of the loop

[TECSHARE]

Why are staff members any different from 'regular' users? They can have valid opinions on this too, but I'm sensing you just don't like staff and the power you think it gives them. There are always two viewpoints to feedback and I'm on the fence on this situation. Is negative justified? Yes. Is it harsh? Possibly. Should it stay? Depends on what redsnow is planning. Many people have concerns about his ability to escrow and that has now been voiced after his error. Yes, the error was unfortunate and relatively small but one that still almost cost someone money and likely would have had a big, bad staff member not stepped in to sort it.

If they try to also police the trust they also bring their baggage from dealing with scammers, trolls, and spammers all day and act callously with little regard for anyone involved, and with little thought, because by their own admission they don't have time to be doing this.

This can apply to regular members too. In fact isn't this pretty much exactly what happend in your case as you got annoyed by someone you thought was troling/harassing you?

Why are they different? Because their job is to police the forum, and after some time that becomes frustrating and builds callousness and unwillingness to listen to people any longer because you simply don't have the time or energy to listen to anyone's complaints any longer. You take your shitty merciless forum policing attitude and apply it to a trust system as a third party with no direct involvement in the situation, and cause MORE HARM, instead of allowing the two parties to achieve a mutually beneficial solution to the issue.

The difference is most regular members don't have an obsessive compulsive need to get involved in disputes as a third party like staff and or staff protected users like VOD. If some one is out of line eventually the user base will push back WITHOUT mommy and daddy babysitting. In my case, if the staff hadn't got involved, Armis would have never been put under the impression that staff would "fix" the rating I left for him and he would have removed his harassing posts, and I would have removed my negative rating, restoring US BOTH to out previous states. Instead staff forced their involvement now I am removed from the default trust and Armis still is marked with negative trust. Wow you guys sure made that issue better.

[redsn0w]

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Yes , I told  : I will not provide anymore my escrow service here in the community. I thought I could complete the 3 escrow services and obviously don't start  new ones (as it is right).  Now the negative feedback will be not never removed , or am I wrong ?

[hilariousandco]

Why are they different? Because their job is to police the forum, and after some time that becomes frustrating and builds callousness and unwillingness to listen to people any longer because you simply don't have the time or energy to listen to anyone's complaints any longer. You take your shitty merciless forum policing attitude and apply it to a trust system as a third party with no direct involvement in the situation, and cause MORE HARM, instead of allowing the two parties to achieve a mutually beneficial solution to the issue.

You sure seem to be making grand assumptions about how fatigued the staff are. I suspect you're projecting your frustration and fatigue with the community rather than the staff's viewpoint. It doesn't cause more harm, you just felt the force of it after doing something you thought you were entitled to. A completely neglected system would let anyone with minor or petty gripes get what they want, as in the attempt in your case.

The difference is most regular members don't have an obsessive compulsive need to get involved in disputes as a third party like staff and or staff protected users like VOD. If some one is out of line eventually the user base will push back WITHOUT mommy and daddy babysitting.

But sometimes mummy and daddy need to get involved when children get out of hand and can't play nice.

In my case, if the staff hadn't got involved, Armis would have never been put under the impression that staff would "fix" the rating I left for him and he would have removed his harassing posts, and I would have removed my negative rating, restoring US BOTH to out previous states. Instead staff forced their involvement now I am removed from the default trust and Armis still is marked with negative trust. Wow you guys sure made that issue better.

That's what you hoped. And Amis might be still marked with negative but it's untrusted and people will now disregard it once they see who it's from.

Seriously I'm done with your whole fiasco. What do you actually attempt to get out of this? All you're doing is making yourself look bad and making people respect you less and less.

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Yes , I told  : I will not provide anymore my escrow service here in the community. I thought I could complete the 3 escrow services and obviously don't start  new ones (as it is right).  Now the negative feedback will be not never removed , or am I wrong ?

From who? I'm sure BadBear will remove it once your current escrows cease and you don't start a new service. Maybe Quickseller will remove or neutralise his over time.

[redsn0w]

..
From who? I'm sure BadBear will remove it once your current escrows cease and you don't start a new service. Maybe Quickseller will remove or neutralise his over time.

Hi , thanks for the fast response. Yes from BedBear , I hope when these 3 escrow services will finish he "may" remove his negative feedback. It would be very appreciated. The negative ones from Quickseller , I also hope he will "reason" well and at the end will make the right choice.

[Mitchell]

Hi , thanks for the fast response. Yes from BedBear , I hope when these 3 escrow services will finish he "may" remove his negative feedback. It would be very appreciated. The negative ones from Quickseller , I also hope he will "reason" well and at the end will make the right choice.

That sounds really wrong if you ask me. It shows disrespect towards Quickseller and his opinion. I wouldn't remove my rating if someone said something like that to me.

[redsn0w]

Hi , thanks for the fast response. Yes from BedBear , I hope when these 3 escrow services will finish he "may" remove his negative feedback. It would be very appreciated. The negative ones from Quickseller , I also hope he will "reason" well and at the end will make the right choice.

That sounds really wrong if you ask me. It shows disrespect towards Quickseller and his opinion. I wouldn't remove my rating if someone said something like that to me.

I don't ask him to remove the negative feedback , I think it was better a neutral one.  For me it is not problem , because I don't think that I deserve a negative feedback (at the end).


*I respect every opinion, as you see I'm not rude or arrogant ....