Except that accusation is totally baseless. You know how much interaction I had with these people how exactly? So because you don't see it in public it simply didn't happen, and you are free to use that assumption to make the further assumption I am doing something harmful or illicit simply based on the fact YOU don't agree with my inclusions?
I disagree.
Given all the evidence, plus the way you've addressed the situation, it's pretty reasonable to
assume that you had little or no relationship with them and only included them to game the DT system.
There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.
Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. These same accusations and assumptions could literally be applied to anyone actively using custom trust lists and is based on assumptions, not facts. The same accusations could be arbitrarily be applied to literally any user actively using custom trust lists you don't agree with.
These accusations against myself, and several of those users, are nothing more than a transparent attempt to maintain control of the trust system so they are free to abuse it at will. Including more users into the default trust dilutes their ability to abuse it against others. These accusations were made as a back door attempt to main control within a small group of users, not as accusations based in fact.
I didn't dox anyone or report them to the IRS in revenge Vod.
I never said you did, Techy.
I'm just saying my feedback is identical to yours, so if you complain, you are a hypocrite.
By definition they aren't identical then. The rating I left for you is based on factual events not under dispute. Your ratings for me are based on assumptions, creative writing, and a desire to attempt to extort me into removing the valid rating I left for you. You have a years long history of abusing the trust system against me. I have only ever left you this one negative rating, and it is absolutely valid.
Theymos himself said it was a valid reason to rate him negatively.
Would it be the same theymos whom you don't trust (exclude from your trust network)? Interesting source to cherry-pick for validating your trust rating.
You also haven't shown
evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way
so you must be using some other "standard" to substantiate your rating.
Based on your own words and actions, and claims such as "mentally ill" (unproven by the provided reference) I must conclude that you posted this rating as an attack in your 5-year long personal squabble with Vod.
Theymos's exclusion choices are not justification for a rating. His specific statement that his behavior would be a valid rating is a totally different circumstance. I didn't rate Vod because Theymos said that, I rated him because his behavior in doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS was despicable, dangerous, illegal, and should not be an acceptable precedent for the forum. The fact that Theymos stated it would be a valid rating is simply supporting evidence, considering he is the one who outlined all of the parameters for the use of the trust system.
Are those the standards of the current system or not? On one hand you argue I should follow those standards because it is what I am advocating for, but in the same breath you excuse the lack of these standards when used against me in a transparent attempt at extortion. What Vod did was in fact illegal.
"
18 U.S. Code § 2261A provides:
“Whoever—
(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”"
As many have already pointed out, he was well known to be a forum treasurer, holding a significant amount of funds, announcing his private residence in public could quite reasonably be considered putting him at significant risk. This combined with Vod's clear attempt to harass and intimidate puts his actions well within the realm of this statute.
As far as the "mentally ill" part, that is directly observable, but in spite of that I have already offered to remove the rating, edit that part out, and replace it with the factually documented rating for doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS. If I do this would you then consider the rating valid?
Funny this is leads you to conclude this is "an attack in your 5-year long personal squabble with Vod." Yet in all that time I never once retaliated with a negative rating in spite of him being documented abusing the trust system against me over and over and over again, and begin forced to remove those abusive ratings. Of course I must stand by stoically for years while being attacked, but when there is a very valid reason to rate him, some one who is constantly impugning the actions of others, it is just me pursuing a vendetta and unilaterally judged invalid by you. This man runs around constantly judging others and destroying reputations. He shouldn't be allowed to treat it as his personal plaything, and he shouldn't be above being punished under the same system he regularly, repeatedly, and continually abuses.
