VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position

[Vod]

but rather point out that you are allowed by the staff to freely abuse the trust system without repercussion

There ya go.  There's your lie (again), because it's simply not true no matter what you think.  

[BitMos]

watching... I am sure it will be fun  . What's cool about electronic argumentation is that normally no ones get hurt (or rephrased it's only possible to self hurt) , and there is time to think to the best appropriate answer.

[TECSHARE]

but rather point out that you are allowed by the staff to freely abuse the trust system without repercussion

There ya go.  There's your lie (again), because it's simply not true no matter what you think.  

Just because you disagree with something I said does not make it a lie, even if it were untrue (your actions prove it is). Simply disagreeing with me is not justification for leaving me negative default trust. Even if I was lying about you (I am not) this is still not sufficient reason to leave negative trust. Furthermore I am not sure how you abusing the default trust to punish me for pointing out you abuse the trust proves your point.


This is not just about me being removed from the default trust, it is about HOW I was removed from the default trust, and how those same standards do not apply to other users here like VOD. The staff had no problems mobilizing themselves to ensure I was removed from the default trust by personally going around requesting that the members who trusted me remove me, but these same staff members are unwilling to do the same when one of their own pals goes MUCH FURTHER, repeatedly abusing the trust system without remorse.


No one ever explained to me that responsibilities were also included along with being on the default trust, I was just added one day with no explanation. I am not sure how I am supposed to honor responsibilities I didn't know existed, were not explained to me, and are not written anywhere. This is why I was removed from the default trust, not because I am "untrustworthy".

[BitcoinEXpress]

Even if I was lying about you (I am not) this is still not sufficient reason to leave negative trust.

Since when did lying not become an extreme indicator of being able to trust someone?

You have an odd system of measuring trustfulness.


~BCX~

[Vod]

Just because you disagree with something I said does not make it a lie, even if it were untrue (your actions prove it is).

So how do MY actions determine what the STAFF is doing?     You don't know if the staff are protecting me or not - so you are lying by stating it as a fact.

No one ever explained to me that responsibilities were also included along with being on the default trust, I was just added one day with no explanation. I am not sure how I am supposed to honor responsibilities I didn't know existed, were not explained to me, and are not written anywhere. This is why I was removed from the default trust, not because I am "untrustworthy".

No one explained the responsibilities to me either -  I was also just added one day with no explanation - you and I were in the same boat.  However, I was able to adapt and change.  

[Beastlymac]

Even if I was lying about you (I am not) this is still not sufficient reason to leave negative trust.

Since when did lying not become an extreme indicator of being able to trust someone?

You have an odd system of measuring trustfulness.


~BCX~

I was removed from level two trust for leaving feedback on a person who was lying and trying to extort money from me. I felt that made the person i left negative feedback on untrustworthy in my eyes but i was still removed.

[ABitNut]

This is not just about me being removed from the default trust, it is about HOW I was removed from the default trust, and how those same standards do not apply to other users here like VOD. The staff had no problems mobilizing themselves to ensure I was removed from the default trust by personally going around requesting that the members who trusted me remove me, but these same staff members are unwilling to do the same when one of their own pals goes MUCH FURTHER, repeatedly abusing the trust system without remorse.

You did something that motivated people to go around and suggest others removed you from their trust list. Vod didn't do something to trigger that reaction. Maybe you're just better at pushing peoples buttons / stepping on peoples toes than others. As a side note, I would trust my pals over a random stranger on a forum any day. 

No one ever explained to me that responsibilities were also included along with being on the default trust, I was just added one day with no explanation. I am not sure how I am supposed to honor responsibilities I didn't know existed, were not explained to me, and are not written anywhere. This is why I was removed from the default trust, not because I am "untrustworthy".

There are no explicit responsibilities attached to being on someone's (even Default trust's) trust list. Being on Default Trust's list does however creates more visibility and potentially more scrutiny. Someone's actions may or may not lead to being added or removed from a trust list. It is not a perfect system. It is probably not even fair. Yet it mostly works.

[BitcoinEXpress]

Isn't about time for the user "jrretirement" to make an appearance on behalf of Techshare advocating the removal of Vod?



~BCX~

[TECSHARE]

Even if I was lying about you (I am not) this is still not sufficient reason to leave negative trust.

Since when did lying not become an extreme indicator of being able to trust someone?

You have an odd system of measuring trustfulness.


~BCX~

Since when is applying a negative rating to people for "lying" an appropriate use of the default trust? It is clear that he is simply trying to silence me from bringing his abusive behavior to light, not attempting to warn anyone of scammers like the system was intended.

Just because you disagree with something I said does not make it a lie, even if it were untrue (your actions prove it is).

So how do MY actions determine what the STAFF is doing?     You don't know if the staff are protecting me or not - so you are lying by stating it as a fact.

Your actions, independent of whatever the staff are doing, have only become MORE ABUSIVE. The fact that staff refuse to do anything about it is secondary to your obvious abuse of the default trust to serve as a cudgel for you to punish people you have personal vendettas against.

I repeat: Just because you disagree with something I said does not make it a lie, even if it were untrue (your actions prove it is). Additionally "lying" alone has never been an acceptable standard for anyone to leave negatives from the default trust as SEVERAL other trust removal cases demonstrate.

No one ever explained to me that responsibilities were also included along with being on the default trust, I was just added one day with no explanation. I am not sure how I am supposed to honor responsibilities I didn't know existed, were not explained to me, and are not written anywhere. This is why I was removed from the default trust, not because I am "untrustworthy".

No one explained the responsibilities to me either -  I was also just added one day with no explanation - you and I were in the same boat.  However, I was able to adapt and change.  

The difference is in my situation staff mobilized and took personal action to ensure I was removed from the default trust along with publicly slandering me and chastising me for it. Staff do not even confront you in public about your actions let alone mobilize to have you removed. This is exactly the point, we are NOT both in the same boat, you get preferential treatment.

I was removed from level two trust for leaving feedback on a person who was lying and trying to extort money from me. I felt that made the person i left negative feedback on untrustworthy in my eyes but i was still removed.

Exactly. The staff ruled that my leaving a negative feedback for Armis for lying about and harassing me was not sufficient reason for a negative rating either. This is clear evidence that some users are more equal than others as far as enforcement of the rules around here, and it has gone to VOD's head so much that he is openly and willfully abusing the default trust system now... to silence people talking about his abuse of the trust system no less.

This is not just about me being removed from the default trust, it is about HOW I was removed from the default trust, and how those same standards do not apply to other users here like VOD. The staff had no problems mobilizing themselves to ensure I was removed from the default trust by personally going around requesting that the members who trusted me remove me, but these same staff members are unwilling to do the same when one of their own pals goes MUCH FURTHER, repeatedly abusing the trust system without remorse.

You did something that motivated people to go around and suggest others removed you from their trust list. Vod didn't do something to trigger that reaction. Maybe you're just better at pushing peoples buttons / stepping on peoples toes than others. As a side note, I would trust my pals over a random stranger on a forum any day.  

No one ever explained to me that responsibilities were also included along with being on the default trust, I was just added one day with no explanation. I am not sure how I am supposed to honor responsibilities I didn't know existed, were not explained to me, and are not written anywhere. This is why I was removed from the default trust, not because I am "untrustworthy".

There are no explicit responsibilities attached to being on someone's (even Default trust's) trust list. Being on Default Trust's list does however creates more visibility and potentially more scrutiny. Someone's actions may or may not lead to being added or removed from a trust list. It is not a perfect system. It is probably not even fair. Yet it mostly works.

VOD did do something to trigger that reaction, and he does so repeatedly, yet the people who trust him, Badbear, Canaryinthemine, and Tomatocage refuse to check his abuses. "pushing peoples buttons" is not an acceptable reason for use of the default trust system to leave a negative rating. The fact that you are his "pal" just demonstrates you are only here to shill for this user. According to the staff there ARE inherent responsibilities attached with being on the default trust list, which is why Theymos personally requested the users who trusted me to remove me. If they just spontaneously decided to remove me it would be different, but they didn't. They were requested to do so by staff and others.

For some reason the staff found it appropriate to get directly involved with my removal over a single complaint, but not in VOD's case. One of the reasons cited were that being on the default trust is a responsibility to hold higher standards for leaving feedback in order to protect the integrity of the system. VOD is clearly abusing the default trust to serve his personal uses AT THE EXPENSE of the community repeatedly, yet I don't see staff mobilizing to protect the integrity of the default trust system. The default trust system as it is is certainly not fair, and I argue it also does a poor job of "working" by preventing scamming as well. The trust system as it exists does more harm than good, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

[jonald_fyookball]

earlier today I was thinking 'maybe Vod has gone too far' but I can't really disprove any of his reasons for leaving negative trust on people.   There definitely is a common thread among the people he neg rates, even if they aren't 'scammers'

[takagari]

So that makes them assholes.
Doesn't mean they are thief. Or scammers.


This entire forum is a joke, and your frankly all a bunch of children.

Tech  give it up man.
Your not part of the cool kid club.
clearly vod has suckered the right d*ck and is.

Move on

[erwin45hacked]

earlier today I was thinking 'maybe Vod has gone too far' but I can't really disprove any of his reasons for leaving negative trust on people.   There definitely is a common thread among the people he neg rates, even if they aren't 'scammers'

i agree, vod leaves neg to people who piss him off

being an asshole or a jerk here doesnt mean a scammer IMO

[jonald_fyookball]

So that makes them assholes.
Doesn't mean they are thief. Or scammers.

hey I was one who practically begged for Vod to remove your
initial neg rate , and he did so, even after you started a thread
called "Vod is a dipshit".

Your red was removed...thanks to me.

But you couldn't leave well enough alone and
decided you needed to neg Vod even though
he only had a neutral trust on you...and then
because of that, he changed it to a new neg.

[takagari]

earlier today I was thinking 'maybe Vod has gone too far' but I can't really disprove any of his reasons for leaving negative trust on people.   There definitely is a common thread among the people he neg rates, even if they aren't 'scammers'

i agree, vod leaves neg to people who piss him off

being an asshole or a jerk here doesnt mean a scammer IMO

Agreed, being an asshole or jerk DOES NOT make one a scammer.

The Default Trust list and feedback is for people that are UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Why do so many think it is only reserved for scammers?

Being a proven liar indeed does make one by default, not trustworthy.



~BCX~

Your hilarious
We've proven time and again where vod has CLEARLY lied his ass off, even outright, or by bending the facts. and yet He isn't held to the same standard, The neg feedback he left on me is FULL of lie's and bent truth to make it seem even worse.

As for him removing it?
I never started that to have the red -1 removed, I wanted the slander and lies about me gone, He didn't infact do that. He simply changed it from red to black, still calling me a liar. The Lies and slander were not gone.

[takagari]

I shall repost it though, as you guy's keep skimming the fact's to back your statement,
So We lied, and were not to be dealt with, using extreme caution.

Here's where I picked apart VODs statement.
All easily proven and can all be tracked off timings.
He quoted his own responses etc.

Spreads FUD - calls me a liar, and a fool. I've caught him in lies at least 3 separate times now. I tried to be the nice guy and remove negative feedback, he retaliated by opening three threads on me and spamming me with PMs. THEN he added negative trust against me.

Before you consider doing any business with this fool, consider he is hot headed and acts without thought. Add to the fact he has no problem lying, and come to the conclusion he should not be dealt with.

Event he feedback he has left now is a lie. And I'm a Liar? lol.

I've caught him in lies at least 3 separate times now.

Prove it! Where? the postal code thing was your misunderstanding what I said, So if your simply going of where I said your response to me was you yelling or laughing. maybe that's because a single one line response such as the following, pisses people off.

You're an idiot.  I haven't been online all day - been babysitting.

..

I tried to be the nice guy and remove negative feedback, he retaliated by opening three threads on me and spamming me with PMs.

I had the three threads AND All the pm's sent, before you were done babysitting. And long before you left my a neutral instead of negative. So there's his Lie number 2 in my rating post.

THEN he added negative trust against me.

That was already there. I removed it before going to bed, then replaced it once I saw you left a Negatively written neutral comment still calling me a liar.

consider he is hot headed and acts without thought.

Hot headed, Okay. I'm pissed. Acts without thought? No, I had a pretty sound reason for being pissed.

Add to the fact he has no problem lying

Screen shots of all the open and easy lieing I've done?

[Beastlymac]

earlier today I was thinking 'maybe Vod has gone too far' but I can't really disprove any of his reasons for leaving negative trust on people.   There definitely is a common thread among the people he neg rates, even if they aren't 'scammers'

i agree, vod leaves neg to people who piss him off

being an asshole or a jerk here doesnt mean a scammer IMO

The Default Trust list and feedback is for people that are UNTRUSTWORTHY.


~BCX~

I agree with this but others don't.

[jonald_fyookball]

@takagari... I'm sure you and Vod both feel you are 'right'... I cannot disprove either of your positions.  I even asked Vod to give you another chance but he, like you, feels truth is on his side.

My advice , just let it go and chalk it up to a lesson in diplomacy.

[takagari]

@takagari... I'm sure you and Vod both feel you are 'right'... I cannot disprove either of your positions.  I even asked Vod to give you another chance but he, like you, feels truth is on his side.

My advice , just let it go and chalk it up to a lesson in diplomacy.

No, because I'm basically a taxi driver saying VOD suck's and VOD holds the power of a MAyor on these forums it seems, so it's not fair.

I can, have, one post up actually, PROVEN how he out right lie's to make his feedback worse.

So even if he is right, and I lied, (I did say he yelled and laughed at me in a pm, when he in fact didnt) Than the feedback should state that. NOT the truth bending it currently spews.

[jonald_fyookball]

No, because I'm basically a taxi driver saying VOD suck's and VOD holds the power of a MAyor on these forums it seems, so it's not fair.

perhaps.

have you heard the old adage "you can't fight city hall"?

you can take your principled stance, and it will have an impact but
you will still have to pay your ticket (have neg trust).

anyway I'm done here.  best of luck!

[BadBear]

I think what it basically boils down to is what TF said.

"Spreads FUD - calls me a liar, and a fool." is a highly inappropriate comment to leave as a negative trust rating. Calling someone a liar in no way justifies a negative trust, like Vod has given, and is contradictory to the forum's policy of free speech.

Is lying or slander a good reason to leave someone negative feedback (free speech is irrelevant)? Personally I don't think it's so black and white, more of a grey area. An example, and for the purposes of this we'll say that I do in fact care what people on the internet say about me  . If someone were to start posting that I'm really pirate@40 in disguise, fabricating evidence, etc, and I leave this person negative feedback, is that really a wrong thing to do? The answer to this is going to vary from person to person, and at the heart of that answer is going to be, whether or not you trust me. If you do trust me, then it is valid feedback, because he's a known liar who can not be trusted. If you don't trust me, then maybe I really am Pirate, and I'm leaving this feedback in order to silence my critics and slander those who dare speak the truth. There are degrees in between of course. It all comes down to your own opinion and your perception of those involved. Opinions, outhouses, etc. Some people are okay with others having different opinions, some are not.

Vod isn't my buddy, I don't know him personally, and he is only in my trust list as long as the community thinks he should be. If the community doesn't trust him, then I would remove him (though note that lots of complaints means nothing if the complaints aren't valid). With the addition of exclusions, it's no longer necessary for Vod to removed from anyone's trust list, just for enough people in the right places to distrust him enough (or his feedback) to exclude him.