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

[iCEBREAKER]

@Techshare


Do you not see the pathology in each of the dozen or so 10,000 word replies and threads you create about this.

It is absolutely amusing watch you melt down over being kicked off the Default Trust list.

I don't think Vod is getting kicked off the list anytime soon.

But hey, good luck on your unicorn hunt.

I'll be watching.

Have a nice day  


~BCX~


Added: for the record I do not think you are a scammer.

Vod has used the rational that 'perhaps my account has been hacked' to justify leaving me negative feedback.

If that's not a good reason to remove him from default trust, I don't know what is.

You could say that anyone's account has 'possibly been hacked.'

[1715448996]

1715448996

[1715448996]

1715448996

[thoughtcourier]

I don't have the time to review all internet flame wars, but I have only had good interactions with TECSHARE. If his allegations about trust are true, I support his recommended changes to this default trust list.

This is the most reasonable comment I found:

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

[BadBear]

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.

Personally I feel a neutral may be more appropriate, but tbh I haven't really kept up with all this so I don't have a strong opinion about it. Too much childish bickering over too many threads (on all sides). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

[takagari]

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.

Personally I feel a neutral may be more appropriate, but tbh I haven't really kept up with all this so I don't have a strong opinion about it. Too much childish bickering over too many threads (on all sides). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

Well. Sadly we are actually looking for some sort of answer from the Admin staff.

Is trust a free for all. Anything goes.
Or is it for Scammers or potential scammers to be flagged (the neutral portion).
And when a trusted member post's lies or half truth's, what can be done about it?

[TECSHARE]

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.

Personally I feel a neutral may be more appropriate, but tbh I haven't really kept up with all this so I don't have a strong opinion about it. Too much childish bickering over too many threads (on all sides). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

You had no problem calling me out for removal without knowing the entire situation, what is different now? Now I am responsible for other people creating threads calling him out on his abuse? What does that have to do with anything? Since VOD is on your trust list, isn't it your RESPONSIBILITY to keep up with accusations made against him since you effectively are one of 3 to grant him this power?

[Wardrick]

The trust system needs to be strictly used for trading and trust related activities and never for personal opinions. Although correct in some cases, it is clearly misused more often. With some exceptions like people who are actively stopping scammers or participating in activities that require a lot of trust, there shouldn't be any reason to negatively impact a persons ability to trade based on a personal feud with them that has nothing to do with trust. If there's sufficient evidence in any case that the person may be a scammer or scamming, then by all means leave them negative feedback. If you are angry at someone or have conflicting opinions, using your feedback weight to attack or punish a member and affect their trading ability isn't an appropriate decision. I'm conflicted about Neutral ratings as well as they show up on the trusted feedback for some members, and although it doesn't affect your trust rating, it may affect your ability to conduct trades. When in reality the rating has nothing to do with your level of trust or ability to trade. Users should always be willing to remove their feedback at a later date if the person has shown a reform in character in situations where it's appropriate. Aside from all the drama, arguments, and conflicts that most of the time incorporate the trust system, it is actually a great way to monitor and gauge a persons trust level as long as it's used appropriately.

[rugrats]

~Off-topic~

BCX, I've mentioned before that I appreciate some of the work you do in the Alt section. But in this instance, you are ill-informed on the subject of Techshare and his removal from Depth Level 2 of the Trust list. I need to make it clear that I don't know Techshare, and I have never conducted any business with him before. And as the admins can attest, I am not an alt of anyone

Techshare started a sales thread. Another member began posting persistently in the thread, questioning his price and accusing him of marking it up (my memory is a bit hazy on the details). After a long back and forth, Techshare left him a negative rating for trolling and unwisely added 1BTC as the risked amount. Perhaps in his mind (just speculating), the amount is from lost sales - I don't know. But that error in judgement led to a prolonged meta argument resulting in Techshare amending his feedback and removing the risked amount. Nevertheless, two DefaultTrust members removed him from their trust list, which consequently, took him off Level 2.

~On topic~

If you've read some of Techshare's stuff in the Politics section, you would understand what a principled person he is. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but it is nonetheless illuminating.

I've nothing against Vod personally. In fact, he removed a neg rating against a friend of mine after I messaged him. However, I think Vod was annoyed that Techshare used him as a point of argument against the Trust system, leading to the negative rating. Techshare was making a point, and Vod was his point. Hence the negative feedback, which I personally think is unwarranted.

[TECSHARE]

~Off-topic~

BCX, I've mentioned before that I appreciate some of the work you do in the Alt section. But in this instance, you are ill-informed on the subject of Techshare and his removal from Depth Level 2 of the Trust list. I need to make it clear that I don't know Techshare, and I have never conducted any business with him before. And as the admins can attest, I am not an alt of anyone

Techshare started a sales thread. Another member began posting persistently in the thread, questioning his price and accusing him of marking it up (my memory is a bit hazy on the details). After a long back and forth, Techshare left him a negative rating for trolling and unwisely added 1BTC as the risked amount. Perhaps in his mind (just speculating), the amount is from lost sales - I don't know. But that error in judgement led to a prolonged meta argument resulting in Techshare amending his feedback and removing the risked amount. Nevertheless, two DefaultTrust members removed him from their trust list, which consequently, took him off Level 2.

~On topic~

If you've read some of Techshare's stuff in the Politics section, you would understand what a principled person he is. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but it is nonetheless illuminating.

I've nothing against Vod personally. In fact, he removed a neg rating against a friend of mine after I messaged him. However, I think Vod was annoyed that Techshare used him as a point of argument against the Trust system, leading to the negative rating. Techshare was making a point, and Vod was his point. Hence the negative feedback, which I personally think is unwarranted.

Although you skipped over a few details, such as staff also punitively adding me as excluded trust 2x over, negating trust listings I earned (not granted like default trust), this is largely true. Thank you for your comment.

Full narrative of the incident: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.0

[Vod]

Personally I feel a neutral may be more appropriate, but tbh I haven't really kept up with all this so I don't have a strong opinion about it. Too much childish bickering over too many threads (on all sides). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I agree with you BadBear - I made the trust neutral.  I would be willing to remove it altogether but TECSHARE would need to stop spreading his lies about me.  I'm not protected by anyone on this forum and I am given no special treatment.   

People in the default trust list have to watch their negative trust more closely. 

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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.

Personally I feel a neutral may be more appropriate, but tbh I haven't really kept up with all this so I don't have a strong opinion about it. Too much childish bickering over too many threads (on all sides). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

Here is the issue:

You have just been sent a personal message by theymos on Bitcoin Forum.

IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.

The message they sent you was:

IMO your ratings of gweedo are inappropriate. His thread title is inaccurate and overly harsh, but this doesn't imply that he's untrustworthy. I feel that allowing your ratings to exist in the default trust network would be counter to the forum's mission of free speech, so I've removed you from the default trust network.

Here is the guidance for the negative feedback:

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

To date, Vod has not backed any of his 'he lied about me' accusations, and his only other reason was because he suspected an account was hacked -- without evidence, just because that account left him a negative feedback.

I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that Vod used his DefaultTrust position to punish speech.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

TECSHARE would need to stop spreading his lies about me.

You have yet again accused that TECSHARE "lied" about you, despite never pointing to a single lie that he has made about you. You have been asked by multiple people to elaborate on what exactly are the "lies" that TECSHARE is "spreading" about you.

You somehow have this complex that anyone who thinks you don't deserve to be on defaulttrust is lying about you, or is a hacked account. Based on theymos' previous precendent, you absolutely and unquestionably do not deserve to be on defaulttrust no matter how many scammers you neg rep.

Do you think that statement I have made about you is a "lie"? Is that what qualifies as a "lie?"

Again, we're all waiting for you to give a single lie that TECSHARE has told about you. Since this forum has a mission of free speech, everyone can (i) criticize your actions, and (ii) suggest that you be removed from DefaultTrust, and everyone can continue to criticize you over an extended period of time (when not disruptive). That's not lying.

[Vod]

TECSHARE would need to stop spreading his lies about me.

You have yet again accused that TECSHARE "lied" about you, despite never pointing to a single lie that he has made about you. You have been asked by multiple people to elaborate on what exactly are the "lies" that TECSHARE is "spreading" about you.

You somehow have this complex that anyone who thinks you don't deserve to be on defaulttrust is lying about you, or is a hacked account. Based on theymos' previous precendent, you absolutely and unquestionably do not deserve to be on defaulttrust no matter how many scammers you neg rep.

Do you think that statement I have made about you is a "lie"? Is that what qualifies as a "lie?"

Again, we're all waiting for you to give a single lie that TECSHARE has told about you. Since this forum has a mission of free speech, everyone can (i) criticize your actions, and (ii) suggest that you be removed from DefaultTrust, and everyone can continue to criticize you over an extended period of time (when not disruptive). That's not lying.

haha...

This from a person that stole thousands of bitcoins from hundreds of people.

Your words mean nothing to me scammer - go away.   

[takagari]

TECSHARE would need to stop spreading his lies about me.

You have yet again accused that TECSHARE "lied" about you, despite never pointing to a single lie that he has made about you. You have been asked by multiple people to elaborate on what exactly are the "lies" that TECSHARE is "spreading" about you.

You somehow have this complex that anyone who thinks you don't deserve to be on defaulttrust is lying about you, or is a hacked account. Based on theymos' previous precendent, you absolutely and unquestionably do not deserve to be on defaulttrust no matter how many scammers you neg rep.

Do you think that statement I have made about you is a "lie"? Is that what qualifies as a "lie?"

Again, we're all waiting for you to give a single lie that TECSHARE has told about you. Since this forum has a mission of free speech, everyone can (i) criticize your actions, and (ii) suggest that you be removed from DefaultTrust, and everyone can continue to criticize you over an extended period of time (when not disruptive). That's not lying.

haha...

This from a person that stole thousands of bitcoins from hundreds of people.

Your words mean nothing to me scammer - go away.   

You still seem to have me blocked, So I am unable to PM you. But I'm somewhat tired of this and would like to come to an agreement. I do not deserve a Scammer tag, no matter how it is looked at, and would like to fix that. I removed any comment toward you this morning.

[hilariousandco]

You still seem to have me blocked, So I am unable to PM you. But I'm somewhat tired of this and would like to come to an agreement. I do not deserve a Scammer tag, no matter how it is looked at, and would like to fix that. I removed any comment toward you this morning.

You haven't got one anymore. He changed it to neutral.

[takagari]

Oh well than, thank you. I don't see his feedback, so wasn't aware.

Edit:
Well I guess that's better than it was.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

TECSHARE would need to stop spreading his lies about me.

You have yet again accused that TECSHARE "lied" about you, despite never pointing to a single lie that he has made about you. You have been asked by multiple people to elaborate on what exactly are the "lies" that TECSHARE is "spreading" about you.

You somehow have this complex that anyone who thinks you don't deserve to be on defaulttrust is lying about you, or is a hacked account. Based on theymos' previous precendent, you absolutely and unquestionably do not deserve to be on defaulttrust no matter how many scammers you neg rep.

Do you think that statement I have made about you is a "lie"? Is that what qualifies as a "lie?"

Again, we're all waiting for you to give a single lie that TECSHARE has told about you. Since this forum has a mission of free speech, everyone can (i) criticize your actions, and (ii) suggest that you be removed from DefaultTrust, and everyone can continue to criticize you over an extended period of time (when not disruptive). That's not lying.

haha...

This from a person that stole thousands of bitcoins from hundreds of people.

Your words mean nothing to me scammer - go away.   

Not going anywhere

Yet another ad hominem attack. This incident has nothing to do with me, and hence any response to do with me is completely irrelevant and inappropriate.

So, what is one "lie" that TECSHARE has ever told about you? We're still waiting.

[iCEBREAKER]

So, what is one "lie" that TECSHARE has ever told about you? We're still waiting.

Default trust list members are held to rigorously high standards and promptly removed if they abuse their position.

Unless their name is Vod.

/thread

[Vod]

So, what is one "lie" that TECSHARE has ever told about you? We're still waiting.

Default trust list members are held to rigorously high standards and promptly removed if they abuse their position.

Unless their name is Vod.

/thread

Yep, that was the lie.  Thanks IB.   

[Shallow]

So, what is one "lie" that TECSHARE has ever told about you? We're still waiting.

Default trust list members are held to rigorously high standards and promptly removed if they abuse their position.

Unless their name is Vod.

/thread

Yep, that was the lie.  Thanks IB.  

Do you have a reading disability?

1) I haven't lied about you, even once - I noticed you can not provide a single example. I don't see how you actually providing an example disrupts the forum. This is just a vague baseless accusation that you refuse to flesh out (because it never happened).

Mind answering this seriously? The longer you refuse to answer, the more people will think that you have no basis for your tantrum and invented the claim that TECSHARE lied about you.

I've updated my feedback appropriately to point out that you have made (and are still making) a number of disparaging claims about users, such as that they lied, without ever pointing to when they lied.

[Vod]

So, what is one "lie" that TECSHARE has ever told about you? We're still waiting.

Default trust list members are held to rigorously high standards and promptly removed if they abuse their position.

Unless their name is Vod.

/thread

Yep, that was the lie.  Thanks IB.  

Do you have a reading disability?

1) I haven't lied about you, even once - I noticed you can not provide a single example. I don't see how you actually providing an example disrupts the forum. This is just a vague baseless accusation that you refuse to flesh out (because it never happened).

Mind answering this seriously? The longer you refuse to answer, the more people will think that you have no basis for your tantrum and invented the claim that TECSHARE lied about you.

Do you have a reading disability?  IB just gave the answer - the same answer I've been giving for a week.  
 
I expect a number of you shills will abuse the trust system and lie on your feedback about me.