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

[Vod]

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.

This is based on people being anonymous, right? My real name and city are known.  I might care a little more than BadBear might because I don't take steps to hide my identity.  BadBear is a nickname while Martin Lawrence is not.  Albeit, Martin Lawrence is a common name, but I still take offense when someone accuses me of something I'm not doing.  And if I'm not doing it, that makes them a liar.  And if they lie, how can I trust them?

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.

I've posted this many times as well.  BadBear and I don't know each other.  I'm sure we have a mutual respect this industry deserves, and I may trust him more than I would trust a stranger, but we are not in cahoots in any way.  I'm not being protected by BadBear or any other moderator on this forum.  I've actually gone to bed a few times with anxiety that I may wake up to a negative trust rating.  

[TECSHARE]

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.

Why is it this laissez faire attitude was not applied to me? I made the argument that Armis was in fact slandering me having never made a transaction with me, but staff saw to it that I was removed none the less. If I had continued to "abuse" the trust then clearly people would have untrusted me by their own accord without staff lending a helping hand to ensure I was removed for certain in response to a single incident. I think you and I both know this is a valid trust abuse claim regardless if you are going to come out and say it explicitly or not. This is not the first time VOD has had legitimate accusations lodged against him. Why is it that he gets chance after chance after chance, and I am removed over a single dispute?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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 [..]

True, it's not black and white. But in this instance, Vod has not justified any supposed "lies" that TECSHARE has made regarding him. I've skimmed through TECSHARE's posting history and I don't see any 'lies' or 'slander'.

Vod seems to have the assumption that you are only allowed the discuss the behavior of him in a few isolated, carefully worded posts. If you continue to post about him and how he should be removed from DefaultTrust, despite not slandering, you are throwing "FUD" and he negatively trusts you.

Vod, how about doing what has been requested in page 1 -- quote the "lies" or "slander" TECSHARE has made?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Why is it this laissez faire attitude was not applied to me?

This thread is for Vod, I understand that you feel you've been treated very unfairly but the thread would be more useful if we focus on the specific incident at hand -- ie, vod leaving you negative trust without substantiation, in what appears to be an attempt at stifling speech.

[takagari]

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 [..]

True, it's not black and white. But in this instance, Vod has not justified any supposed "lies" that TECSHARE has made regarding him. I've skimmed through TECSHARE's posting history and I don't see any 'lies' or 'slander'.

Vod seems to have the assumption that you are only allowed the discuss the behavior of him in a few isolated, carefully worded posts. If you continue to post about him and how he should be removed from DefaultTrust, despite not slandering, you are throwing "FUD" and he negatively trusts you.

Vod, how about doing what has been requested in page 1 -- quote the "lies" or "slander" TECSHARE has made?

He never could on the five pages of my thread, he won't here. All he has on me was saying he laughed and yelled in a pm, which wasnt what he said, simply the context I took from the pm.
I called him a liar, he also stated I was clearly not a canadian. So he is allowed to make an assumption, produce a lie based on it, and not have any repercussions, but when a member is wronged or insulted and get's mad. That's the end for them?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

He never could on the five pages of my thread, he won't here. All he has on me was saying he laughed and yelled in a pm, which wasnt what he said, simply the context I took from the pm.
I called him a liar, he also stated I was clearly not a canadian. So he is allowed to make an assumption, produce a lie based on it, and not have any repercussions, but when a member is wronged or insulted and get's mad. That's the end for them?

This, as well. Vod, can you quote any lie that takagari or TECSHARE has made, that justifies a negative trust rating?

If either of them has deleted / edited anything, I'm sure the admins can recover it.

[Quickseller]

Why is it this laissez faire attitude was not applied to me?

This thread is for Vod, I understand that you feel you've been treated very unfairly but the thread would be more useful if we focus on the specific incident at hand -- ie, vod leaving you negative trust without substantiation, in what appears to be an attempt at stifling speech.

The irony of this is blaring. TECSHARE is calling for the removal of Vod from default trust list because he feels like Vod is trying to silence him, while the exact reason that TECSHARE was removed was because he was trying to silence a critic who had very valid points in his posts/criticism

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Hilariously, Vod has just left iCEBREAKER negative trust after iCEBREAKER gave him neg trust for this incident. Vod is claiming that iCEBREAKER has "lied" about him, again with no substantiation of how he supposedly "lied".

I made a new thread about this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916867.0

[takagari]

He never could on the five pages of my thread, he won't here. All he has on me was saying he laughed and yelled in a pm, which wasnt what he said, simply the context I took from the pm.
I called him a liar, he also stated I was clearly not a canadian. So he is allowed to make an assumption, produce a lie based on it, and not have any repercussions, but when a member is wronged or insulted and get's mad. That's the end for them?

This, as well. Vod, can you quote any lie that takagari or TECSHARE has made, that justifies a negative trust rating?

If either of them has deleted / edited anything, I'm sure the admins can recover it.

Techshare has stated in this thread that he has no alts or shills.

If this is proven false will you concede his statement in post #10 to be a lie?


~BCX~

Prove it, sure, but than say that in the rating.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Techshare has stated in this thread that he has no alts or shills.

If this is proven false will you concede his statement in post #10 to be a lie?

Irrelevant, please don't try to muddy the waters:

"Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list."

We are asking for a substantiation of his trust rating, that is, a lie that TECSHARE made about VOD.

[takagari]

And again, let's repost this one. Where VOD CLEARLY lie's, even bending the time line of things to make me 100% the bad guy, and him the angle.

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?

[Quickseller]

He never could on the five pages of my thread, he won't here. All he has on me was saying he laughed and yelled in a pm, which wasnt what he said, simply the context I took from the pm.
I called him a liar, he also stated I was clearly not a canadian. So he is allowed to make an assumption, produce a lie based on it, and not have any repercussions, but when a member is wronged or insulted and get's mad. That's the end for them?

This, as well. Vod, can you quote any lie that takagari or TECSHARE has made, that justifies a negative trust rating?

If either of them has deleted / edited anything, I'm sure the admins can recover it.

I would say that Vod's rating for both takagari and TECHSHARE are valid, although the comments may need some editing. takagari is very hot headed and essentially blew up when the trust rating was not immediately removed and his comment about him being hotheaded is true.

TCHSHARE seems to be a little too eager to be on default trust list and previously used his former position on such in order to silence people who were making valid concerns. He stood to financially benefit from such silence. VOD on the other hand does not stand to financially benefit from his critics being silenced

[Shallow]

I would say that Vod's rating for both takagari and TECHSHARE are valid, although the comments may need some editing. takagari is very hot headed and essentially blew up when the trust rating was not immediately removed and his comment about him being hotheaded is true.

Someone being hot headed makes them a scammer? I think you all are missing what negative feedback is for:

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."

Will a reasonable person think "being hot headed" is a reason for "strongly believing this person is a scammer"?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Now you're being selective about the lies Techshare tells.

Again, you have failed to read the post, and completely missed the point. I will assume good faith, and assume that you are not intentionally misinterpreting my posts (3 times today) in order to distract the discussion.

When you leave someone a negative rating claiming "X", "X" should be true.

Leaving someone a negative feedback for "X" (ie: 'lying about me') when you cannot prove or even substitute X is inappropriate.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Reposting for new thread.

Vod, what "lies" have takgari or TECSHARE or iCEBREAKER told about you?

[Quickseller]

I would say that Vod's rating for both takagari and TECHSHARE are valid, although the comments may need some editing. takagari is very hot headed and essentially blew up when the trust rating was not immediately removed and his comment about him being hotheaded is true.

Someone being hot headed makes them a scammer? I think you all are missing what negative feedback is for:

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."

Will a reasonable person think "being hot headed" is a reason for "strongly believing this person is a scammer"?

Okay, maybe I can concede on takagari, although I would say his actions show that if any business deal were to not go smooth then any deal would only get worse. I personally would "trade with caution" with him.

In regards to TECHSHARE I think he is too eager to be on default trust list. I cannot point to anything specific as to how this makes him a scammer (I also have not given him negative trust) however I do have somewhat of a bad feeling about him wanting to be on default trust so badly

[ABitNut]

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.

Vod is still at Depth 2 from Default Trust, so obviously Vod did not trigger the same reaction. In you opinion he should have triggered it, but Badbear, Canaryinthemine, and Tomatocage disagree with you. "Pushing peoples buttons" may cause people to not trust you. Those people may publish that by leaving negative feedback. It is all based on opinion. Many people trust you. Some people don't. That sounds reasonable to me. I am neutral to you because I don't know you. Vod doesn't trust you cause he said you're a liar. Takagari thinks you're trustworthy by merit of fighting Vod's feedback behaviour. That's all valid in my book.

Bottom line is that you cannot directly decide who someone trusts or not. Though of course you can influence it in many ways, ranging from exposing a persons foul play to slandering.

Also, as attractive as Vod is, I have no relationship with him other than that we happen to both post on this forum. So I am not a shill. I do think his method is effective though, so you may call me a supporter . However since the introduction of neutral feedback, I think may be more appropriate for hotheads.

[erwin45hacked]

Reposting for new thread.

Vod, what "lies" have takgari or TECSHARE or iCEBREAKER told about you?

id like to know this too

if vod cant quote or show us evidence i think vod spew out "lies" too

IMO every neg trust should put in evidence in reference , not just based on feelings

I dont trust this guys dont deal with him

sometimes things like this stop scam attempt

but sometimes i notices this is just based on pure feelings of individuals

[takagari]

But lies and being a hot head is not what the system is for!

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

[TECSHARE]

Why is it this laissez faire attitude was not applied to me?

This thread is for Vod, I understand that you feel you've been treated very unfairly but the thread would be more useful if we focus on the specific incident at hand -- ie, vod leaving you negative trust without substantiation, in what appears to be an attempt at stifling speech.

The entire reason he left me negative trust was because of my efforts to point out that his repeated abuses of the default trust are allowed, while people such as myself are immediately banished, demonstrating that in fact staff DO give him preferential treatment (something he claims is a lie), so in fact it is quite relevant.

Why is it this laissez faire attitude was not applied to me?

This thread is for Vod, I understand that you feel you've been treated very unfairly but the thread would be more useful if we focus on the specific incident at hand -- ie, vod leaving you negative trust without substantiation, in what appears to be an attempt at stifling speech.

The irony of this is blaring. TECSHARE is calling for the removal of Vod from default trust list because he feels like Vod is trying to silence him, while the exact reason that TECSHARE was removed was because he was trying to silence a critic who had very valid points in his posts/criticism

This isn't irony, this is VOD attempting to prove that he has special privileges to abuse the trust system by getting away with exactly what staff CLAIMED I was guilty of. I tried to explain multiple times that no one ever bothered writing down or explaining to me the responsibilities that come along with being placed on the default trust, I was just on it one day. I erroneously assumed that like every other user here, we were free to use our feedback in any way we deemed necessary and the community itself would balance abuse by untrusting or removing abusers, and that trust was completely unmoderated by staff.

Because these rules were unspoken and unwritten, I only had the example of users such as VOD to demonstrate what is acceptable use of the trust system in practice. In short he has been allowed to abuse the trust for some time according to the rules I have been made aware of AFTER my removal from the default trust, and this absent of any other information made his actions appear to be valid forms of trust use. I even told him so in my trust removal thread. Additionally VOD even commented on the issue and said "I would have reacted the same way.", indicating very clearly he did not agree it was necessarily an abuse of the trust. Yet I was removed from default trust for a SINGLE COMPLAINT left in response to the user Armis harassing me, and that is exactly what my rating stated.

At no point was I ever attempting to silence Armis, only get him to remove his slanderous posts from my sales threads where he was harming my ability to sell by unjustly making users paranoid about my trustworthiness in trading. Armis didn't feel that I should be selling a gift card at face value, sounds like he really exposed me! Furthermore, if his only goal was to point out some supposed wrongdoing I was up to, why did he stick around to make insults? Armis did nothing but escalate the situation at every step, even after I offered him a mutually beneficial option to restore his trust after he removed his slander from my sales threads. His only intent was to harass me and hinder my ability to trade. If he had made his posts in the scam accusation area, meta, or if the admins had responded to my reports, the trust rating would never have been used.

That was not judged to be an acceptable use of trust by the staff, yet here VOD is again using the trust in exactly such a way and he is still not having any repercussions. The only difference between the two ratings is I was honest about why I left my rating for Armis, VOD is attempting to place a veil of legitimacy over his by claiming I lied about him (and therefore lying himself).

I was already punished for my supposed trust abuse. Not only was I removed from the default trust, I got to be the very first test case for trust exclusions, which were applied to me 2x by high ranking members in the trust effectively NEGATING TRUST I ACTUALLY EARNED from others. There is NO WAY I can ever recover my trust from this because I can never be higher ranked than those users no matter how many successful transactions I do or who trusts me in the future. What gives you the right to negate trust I earned. You removed me from the default trust, what is the punitive punishment for? Why should those punishments apply to me for a single incident, but not to VOD for his repeated flagrant disregard for default trust rating standards? Why is it that these rules are for some people but not for others?

I would say that Vod's rating for both takagari and TECHSHARE are valid, although the comments may need some editing. takagari is very hot headed and essentially blew up when the trust rating was not immediately removed and his comment about him being hotheaded is true.

Someone being hot headed makes them a scammer? I think you all are missing what negative feedback is for:

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."

Will a reasonable person think "being hot headed" is a reason for "strongly believing this person is a scammer"?

Okay, maybe I can concede on takagari, although I would say his actions show that if any business deal were to not go smooth then any deal would only get worse. I personally would "trade with caution" with him.

In regards to TECHSHARE I think he is too eager to be on default trust list. I cannot point to anything specific as to how this makes him a scammer (I also have not given him negative trust) however I do have somewhat of a bad feeling about him wanting to be on default trust so badly

I already made it clear I do not give a shit about being on the default trust list, it is the REASON why I was removed that is the issue, as well as the selective enforcement of those rules. If I really wanted to get back on the default trust (which I am advocating the abolition of completely btw), this is clearly not the way to do it. I repeat, the default trust is a FLAWED SYSTEM, and I want to have no part in in. I do however find it telling that you are arguing against someone advocating the abolition of the default trust, which would effectively make all those accounts you are trying to peddle nearly worthless.

Vod is still at Depth 2 from Default Trust, so obviously Vod did not trigger the same reaction. In you opinion he should have triggered it, but Badbear, Canaryinthemine, and Tomatocage disagree with you. "Pushing peoples buttons" may cause people to not trust you. Those people may publish that by leaving negative feedback. It is all based on opinion. Many people trust you. Some people don't. That sounds reasonable to me. I am neutral to you because I don't know you. Vod doesn't trust you cause he said you're a liar. Takagari thinks you're trustworthy by merit of fighting Vod's feedback behaviour. That's all valid in my book.

Bottom line is that you cannot directly decide who someone trusts or not. Though of course you can influence it in many ways, ranging from exposing a persons foul play to slandering.

Also, as attractive as Vod is, I have no relationship with him other than that we happen to both post on this forum. So I am not a shill. I do think his method is effective though, so you may call me a supporter . However since the introduction of neutral feedback, I think may be more appropriate for hotheads.

The fact that the staff and or people who put him on their trust list did not react in a consistent way is exactly my point. In spite of stacks of valid accusations against him for trust abuse, nothing is done. People on the default trust list are not supposed to be leaving negative trust based on opinions, and myself as well as others were removed for MUCH less while he flagrantly abuses the system to silence people pointing out he abuses the system. This is not a valid use of default trust ratings according to the standards previously enforced directly by staff.