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

[TECSHARE]

Trust me, there's a lot of roadwork you have to do in order to create a system that blocks scams. Even my project in its infancy is piled with a mountain of TODOs. 

Thank you for the perfect quote - don't take this example personally. 

You ask me to trust that you've had experience dealing with large anonymous member bases, and that you've discovered it's difficult.    I don't know you - all I have is your word.  It might not work on me, but eventually some user will fall for your fake proof and start to boost your reputation.   

I don't want to trust that "Bob" did his due diligence in investigating you.  I want to verify what you claim.

My system is anonymous and trust less.  I'm not trying to stop the wave, I'm just going to ride it and assist anyone I see drowning.

I like how you have turned a thread about your trust system abuse into an advertisement/ego stroking device all the while never once even attempting to justify your actions.

[JaredKaragen]

I like how you have turned a thread about your trust system abuse into an advertisement/ego stroking device all the while never once even attempting to justify your actions.

All any user needs to do is follow my posts in the thread to prove that statement 100% accurate.

[peloso]

vod is still in dt and nobody excluded him

[bonesjonesreturns]

vod is still in dt and nobody excluded him

Did you really hope any of the scammer supporting colluding scum of DT would do anything ?
There is no working with these DT members. Removal is the only way.

Better to use the truth to turn them into pariahs, projects will eventually dump them with enough concerted pressure and they will be requesting to leave DT.
Sadly vod has no sponsor.
I feel public denigration and constant ridicule based on his publically available history leveraging his prior admission to being willing to allow honest members placed in danger just so he would not get a red tag is all you need
He can either stop supporting scammers and trust abusing people or he can be crushed into the dirt with other scammer supporters

Now that vod is a confirmed and prove scammer facilitator deliberately and callously preventing honest members receiving valuable warning about proven and undeniable scammers ( the same one he was too cowardly to red tag himself) there is some real meat to grab hold of with vod.

I bet he never thought he would be caught undeniably scammer facilitating.

He can try to debunk the truth I am stating... i hope he does.

I mean after trying to dox our forum treasurer and endanger the boards funds and the treasurers life
And now full on undeniable scammer facilitating.

He need removal or banning. Dangerous sad old fool.
I think people like vod a pitiful but perhaps too much empathy is not a good thing as nullius says.

[peloso]

vod is still in dt and nobody excluded him

Did you really hope any of the scammer supporting colluding scum of DT would do anything ?

no..
i just inform morons that distrusted me)

[TECSHARE]

Vod   2020-07-27   Reference   "Trading trust with a known scammer. You do not need to trust someone when they send first. "

So Vod just gets to make his own rules eh? Now I can't engage in an exchange with a 3rd party he doesn't like without receiving a negative rating?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So Vod just gets to make his own rules eh? Now I can't engage in an exchange with a 3rd party he doesn't like without receiving a negative rating?

What am I missing as far as why that feedback was left?  The reference link only goes to your trust page.  Who is it Vod thinks you traded trust with?  

Edit:

Does it even matter?

Well, I'm just trying to figure out what Vod's logic was here--and I'm not taking sides, just trying to clarify what the accusation really is.

Edit 2:

<snip>

OK, thank you for the link.  I haven't read that thread yet, but I'll do it shortly--and Vod's reference link in his feedback for TECSHARE probably should have linked to that thread so as to avoid confusion.

Edit 3:  Lol, I posted in that thread but I can barely recall it since it was almost a year ago.  Now I'm wondering what the point is for Vod leaving TECSHARE a neg right now. 

[TECSHARE]

So Vod just gets to make his own rules eh? Now I can't engage in an exchange with a 3rd party he doesn't like without receiving a negative rating?

What am I missing as far as why that feedback was left?  The reference link only goes to your trust page.  Who is it Vod thinks you traded trust with?  

Does it even matter? How flimsy of a pretense does he even need to have any more to prove he uses the trust system like a toy to serve his own personal spats and not to protect the user base from fraud? Some people are just more equal than others under this system I suppose.

[TwitchySeal]

What am I missing as far as why that feedback was left?  The reference link only goes to your trust page.  Who is it Vod thinks you traded trust with?  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837

tldr; he added a bunch of people to his trust list hoping they would return the favor which would help him with his quest for the holy grail (spot on DT1) and destroy all fools that have crossed him in the past.

[TECSHARE]

What am I missing as far as why that feedback was left?  The reference link only goes to your trust page.  Who is it Vod thinks you traded trust with?  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837

tldr; he added a bunch of people to his trust list hoping they would return the favor which would help him with his quest for the holy grail (spot on DT1) and destroy all fools that have crossed him in the past.

And the first clown arrives to attempt to create noise to distract from the irresponsible behavior with stale baseless accusations totally unrelated to the matter at hand. So you speak for Vod now do you?

Edit:

Does it even matter?

Well, I'm just trying to figure out what Vod's logic was here--and I'm not taking sides, just trying to clarify what the accusation really is.

I would tell you to ask him, but any time it comes to taking responsibility for himself he gets distinctively evasive, refuses to engage in anything that could even loosely be called a discussion, and continually attempts to divert from the subject at hand, IE his objectionable actions. Its alright though, the rules are only for the plebeians at Bitcointalk, not the high clown council.

[TwitchySeal]

So you speak for Vod now do you?

No?  That's really what you got out of that?

[TECSHARE]

So you speak for Vod now do you?

No?  That's really what you got out of that?

So then your point is your post is totally irrelevant to the thread in general as well as my post? Otherwise, it would appear, yes that you are in fact speaking for VOD's intent here in leaving this rating.

[Vod]

OK - new information.  I claim you don't need to trust someone that sends to you first.  Do you disagree?

If you want to discuss that, I will.  Otherwise, your troll tactics no longer work on me.

[TECSHARE]

OK - new information.  I claim you don't need to trust someone that sends to you first.  Do you disagree?

If you want to discuss that, I will.  Otherwise, your troll tactics no longer work on me.

What does that have to do with your most recent frivolous negative rating?

[LoyceV]

OK - new information.  I claim you don't need to trust someone that sends to you first.  Do you disagree?

I agree. But I don't agree that it deserves negative feedback.

Positive (shown as +1)

• If you made a small deal with someone, that doesn't deserve positive feedback.
• If you made a deal in which you risked a substantial amount of money with someone, and all went well, that deserves positive feedback.
• If someone is a nice guy (or girl), that doesn't deserve positive feedback.
• If you believe someone can be trusted, even when you didn't trade with him, that too deserves positive feedback.

Neutral (shown as =1)

• Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted. This can be good feedback, for instance when someone helped you out.
• I think Neutral Feedback is currently undervalued on Bitcointalk. It's a great tool to de-escalate without drastic consequences. Please use it when appropriate.

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

Aside from neutral feedback, I also think the Ignore button is highly undervalued. Life's too short to argue with people you don't like

[TECSHARE]

[THE SOUND OF THE TRUST SYSTEM WORKING INTENSIFIES]


All the people directly giving Vod the authority to abuse the trust system:

Vod: 20

    Trusted by:
        HostFat
        qwk
        Foxpup
        Cyrus
        Welsh
        yogg
        Avirunes
        mindrust
        cryptodevil
        suchmoon
        JayJuanGee
        examplens
        yahoo62278
        zazarb
        actmyname
        SFR10
        TryNinja
        condoras
        bL4nkcode
        Lafu
        xtraelv
        JollyGood
        Coin-1
        morvillz7z
        DireWolfM14
        TalkStar
        1miau

[TECSHARE]

No one even asks him explain himself? He is literally not questioned in his actions by anyone any more? He is asked once for substantiation, he gives a total non-response, and that's it.

You do understand the sole reason he is even doing this is because he knows none of you will say boo to him. Not because he is so well respected, but because he is such a lunatic no one wants to have to deal with him and the consequences of confronting him, such as obsessive stalking, harassment, doxing, reporting to federal agencies, you know that sort of thing.

When I say the trust system is not "equitable", this is exactly what I am referring to, because in order for the trust system to work correctly for you, you also have to be popular. Being honest and not a thief is not good enough, to get past the gate here you must bring an extra large bottle of ball polish with you.

The "trust system" is a popularity contest for losers to rank up in. Not a trust system. Furthermore it is a popularity contest under the complete control of people just like Vod, because anyone not like Vod refuses to do anything to change it, thus it is totally exploited and insecure. It is security theater.

[TwitchySeal]

No one even asks him explain himself? He is literally not questioned in his actions by anyone any more? He is asked once for substantiation, he gives a total non-response, and that's it.

He’s explained himself a bunch of times over the past 40 pages of this thread and other threads. So have you. The people who care, and plenty who don’t care, are aware.

[TECSHARE]

No one even asks him explain himself? He is literally not questioned in his actions by anyone any more? He is asked once for substantiation, he gives a total non-response, and that's it.

He’s explained himself a bunch of times over the past 40 pages of this thread and other threads. So have you. The people who care, and plenty who don’t care, are aware.

He explained himself about a future event? You were just saying how you don't speak for Vod. For some one who doesn't speak for Vod, you sure do speak for Vod a lot.

P.S. No, he hasn't.

[TwitchySeal]

My goal was not to have you removed from the default trust list until now.

That was 5 years ago^^^

You just do the same thing over and over again each time hoping it will end with vod destroyed and you the hero, and then you act all shocked and appalled when nobody really cares because you've been doing this constantly for how many years now?  

Think about how much time and effort you've put into this beef with vod over the years.  You're clearly very unhappy that vod isn't getting what you think he deserves but maybe try focusing on something else when you feel that rage bubbling up.  Then go find some old rants and read them out loud to yourself.  You might be surprised at the rabid-yet-insecure pig vibes you give off when you get really emotional.