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

[tspacepilot]

Hey people who bumped this thread in June, were you guys not aware of this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074434.msg11485118#msg11485118

Vod has been long gone for more than 20 days.  I think you may just want to let this thread die now.  Good luck, everyone, moving along...

[TECSHARE]

Hey people who bumped this thread in June, were you guys not aware of this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074434.msg11485118#msg11485118

Vod has been long gone for more than 20 days.  I think you may just want to let this thread die now.  Good luck, everyone, moving along...

Unfortunately the damage he has done did not just leave with him... also he will be back (under a new name).

[V.Lace]

Techshare your right, the community protects people they do business with, I got scammed 95 dollars and the scammer did not get his negged removed by the people that left them and nor did anyone come to neg him because they probably are doing business with him.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hey people who bumped this thread in June, were you guys not aware of this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074434.msg11485118#msg11485118

Vod has been long gone for more than 20 days.  I think you may just want to let this thread die now.  Good luck, everyone, moving along...

Unfortunately the damage he has done did not just leave with him... also he will be back (under a new name).

ok fine, but his new avatar better be licking a boob of some kind.

[--Encrypted--]

I actually miss Vod and his -ve feedbacks. there's a lot of newbie clowns (especially this guy) on the lending section that needs to be taught a lesson of no collateral no loan.  

[V.Lace]

Vod is the hero bitcointalk.org deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

This is to funny, but yeah I think I know what you mean.

[V.Lace]

Well I can say Two legendary Members, helped me out in a dire situation, and they did it rationally without having to pursue using negative feedback as the first tool against potential scams.  TechShare and TomatoCage are good example of how top rank members should act.  I am not ready for that rank. but I can watch and learn from them.

[tspacepilot]

Well I can say Two legendary Members, helped me out in a dire situation, and they did it rationally without having to pursue using negative feedback as the first tool against potential scams.  TechShare and TomatoCage are good example of how top rank members should act.  I am not ready for that rank. but I can watch and learn from them.

A newbie offers a message of peace!  TecShare and TomatoCage happily setting examples together for how people should act.  Imagine!

[mmmaybe]

As I stated in the thread about luke-jr and his ranking, there is simply a dumb idea to have something as "default trust". Trust is not gravity or hydrogen, trust is human - and one of the most consistent characteristic of humanity is that individual change. Not only get older or more skinny or whatever, but a trusted person can/will - influenced of various factors - become untrusted.

Default trust should not only be removed from luke-jr and VOD, but the category should be dumped permanently.

[Lauda]

As I stated in the thread about luke-jr and his ranking, there is simply a dumb idea to have something as "default trust". Trust is not gravity or hydrogen, trust is human - and one of the most consistent characteristic of humanity is that individual change. Not only get older or more skinny or whatever, but a trusted person can/will - influenced of various factors - become untrusted.

Default trust should not only be removed from luke-jr and VOD, but the category should be dumped permanently.

Stop trying to start the 'default trust should be removed' discussion in the wrong threads. It was already concluded that the system is flawed, however until nothing better is presented it is staying.

Used to be a trusted and worth member of the Burst community. However, he died and his account was sold to an imposter. Probably not a big deal but be careful.

A little note found on your account by someone whom you left positive rating to. Interesting.

[mmmaybe]

As I stated in the thread about luke-jr and his ranking, there is simply a dumb idea to have something as "default trust". Trust is not gravity or hydrogen, trust is human - and one of the most consistent characteristic of humanity is that individual change. Not only get older or more skinny or whatever, but a trusted person can/will - influenced of various factors - become untrusted.

Default trust should not only be removed from luke-jr and VOD, but the category should be dumped permanently.

Stop trying to start the 'default trust should be removed' discussion in the wrong threads. It was already concluded that the system is flawed, however until nothing better is presented it is staying.

Used to be a trusted and worth member of the Burst community. However, he died and his account was sold to an imposter. Probably not a big deal but be careful.

A little note found on your account by someone whom you left positive rating to. Interesting.

Sir, I will not bring that issue up again but feel obliged to comment on the note you cited even if it touches the system itself.

As you can see by these words, I am alive and doing well. In fact, that comment is just a proof how flawed the system is. I can prove by an old address that I'm not an impostor, but I simply haven't cared to do something about it as I thought people paid little to no respect to remarks like that.

If you would consider you helping me to prove I'm not an impostor by (a cited, uneditable) sig and do something positive for flawed the system (plausibly staff would remove it then since you are a respected member of the community), I'd appreciate it.

PM me if you would do that for me.

[tspacepilot]

If you would consider you helping me to prove I'm not an impostor by (a cited, uneditable) sig and do something positive for flawed the system (plausibly staff would remove it then since you are a respected member of the community), I'd appreciate it.

PM me if you would do that for me.

LaudaM is a respected person, but staff is not going to remove feedback from your account.  Their stated policy is that they don't get involved in such matters.  On my own account I have several feedbacks which are pure nonsense and there's nothing I can do about it.  A lot of members have nonsense feedback on their accounts.  The best you can do is try to get the person who left it to remove it,  barring that you can put your proof in a public place and link to it (as a reference, say, in a counter feedback on the person who left the nonsense).  Then anyone who sees what that person said about you will scroll down and see what you said about them and that you've posted proof that their claim isn't correct.

Good luck!

[mmmaybe]

If you would consider you helping me to prove I'm not an impostor by (a cited, uneditable) sig and do something positive for flawed the system (plausibly staff would remove it then since you are a respected member of the community), I'd appreciate it.

PM me if you would do that for me.

LaudaM is a respected person, but staff is not going to remove feedback from your account.  Their stated policy is that they don't get involved in such matters.  On my own account I have several feedbacks which are pure nonsense and there's nothing I can do about it.  A lot of members have nonsense feedback on their accounts.  The best you can do is try to get the person who left it to remove it,  barring that you can put your proof in a public place and link to it (as a reference, say, in a counter feedback on the person who left the nonsense).  Then anyone who sees what that person said about you will scroll down and see what you said about them and that you've posted proof that their claim isn't correct.

Good luck!

Thanks for the information, I been here for 15 months and never picked up on that. I'll try to get the proof available.

[imbladednow]

I like vod, leave him alone. He is a trusted member here and his word is solid.

[TECSHARE]

I like vod, leave him alone. He is a trusted member here and his word is solid.

If only he left people alone himself...

[iCEBREAKER]

If you would consider you helping me to prove I'm not an impostor by (a cited, uneditable) sig and do something positive for flawed the system (plausibly staff would remove it then since you are a respected member of the community), I'd appreciate it.

PM me if you would do that for me.

LaudaM is a respected person, but staff is not going to remove feedback from your account.  Their stated policy is that they don't get involved in such matters.  On my own account I have several feedbacks which are pure nonsense and there's nothing I can do about it.  A lot of members have nonsense feedback on their accounts.  The best you can do is try to get the person who left it to remove it,  barring that you can put your proof in a public place and link to it (as a reference, say, in a counter feedback on the person who left the nonsense).  Then anyone who sees what that person said about you will scroll down and see what you said about them and that you've posted proof that their claim isn't correct.

Good luck!

I got my Trust spammed with X-POOL links, because crackfoo is upset I asked him to stop spamming X-POOL links.

That'll teach me!   

[xmaxbit]

I agree with the OP . Vod is here just for leaving negative trusts as far as I have observed . He takes action very rapidly . Ofcourse one negative trust is not going to affect a person having so mmuch positive trusts, but the fact is you have no right to spoil someones profile without a logical reason.

[Lauda]

-snip-
As you can see by these words, I am alive and doing well. In fact, that comment is just a proof how flawed the system is. I can prove by an old address that I'm not an impostor, but I simply haven't cared to do something about it as I thought people paid little to no respect to remarks like that.

If you would consider you helping me to prove I'm not an impostor by (a cited, uneditable) sig and do something positive for flawed the system (plausibly staff would remove it then since you are a respected member of the community), I'd appreciate it.

That's not really an example of how flawed it is. Do you know how the justice system works? Unless you prove X, Y is considered to be true. So far you haven't really proven that you're the same account holder, however your trust rating is 0/0.

LaudaM is a respected person, but staff is not going to remove feedback from your account.  Their stated policy is that they don't get involved in such matters.  On my own account I have several feedbacks which are pure nonsense and there's nothing I can do about it.
-snip-

Well thank you for your opinions, however I doubt that I have any power in regards to this. Someone on default trust 1 probably has a lot of influence. What I was trying to tell mmmaybe is that he should not be trying to start the removal discussion within this thread. The current system can't really be removed, but it can be replaced. I'd advise you to try and figure out the right and better implementation and suggest it on this subforum.

I agree with the OP . Vod is here just for leaving negative trusts as far as I have observed . He takes action very rapidly . Ofcourse one negative trust is not going to affect a person having so mmuch positive trusts, but the fact is you have no right to spoil someones profile without a logical reason.

As far as I have observed you make observations rapidly. 

[hilariousandco]

I agree with the OP . Vod is here just for leaving negative trusts as far as I have observed . He takes action very rapidly . Ofcourse one negative trust is not going to affect a person having so mmuch positive trusts, but the fact is you have no right to spoil someones profile without a logical reason.

How swiftly should action be taken with potential/very probable scammers? Rapid is usually needed to stop them from scamming, as if you delay that's when people get scammed. I often delay in leaving feedback and/or prefer to give users the benefit of the doubt or wait till I'm 100%, but me not immediately leaving negative when I probably should have has lead to one person getting scammed recently and a few others before that. Vod or QS or whoever may get the occasional feedback wrong from time to time but 99% of the time they're on point and stop a lot of people getting scammed. People who do receive negative feedback they believe in error or without merit can make their case in Meta and if they can show that they're unwarranted the people who left them will often remove them but we really shouldn't be demonizing scam-busters unless their success rate seriously drops off.

[tspacepilot]

I agree with the OP . Vod is here just for leaving negative trusts as far as I have observed . He takes action very rapidly . Ofcourse one negative trust is not going to affect a person having so mmuch positive trusts, but the fact is you have no right to spoil someones profile without a logical reason.

How swiftly should action be taken with potential/very probable scammers? Rapid is usually needed to stop them from scamming, as if you delay that's when people get scammed. I often delay in leaving feedback and/or prefer to give users the benefit of the doubt or wait till I'm 100%, but me not immediately leaving negative when I probably should have has lead to one person getting scammed recently and a few others before that. Vod or QS or whoever may get the occasional feedback wrong from time to time but 99% of the time they're on point and stop a lot of people getting scammed. People who do receive negative feedback they believe in error or without merit can make their case in Meta and if they can show that they're unwarranted the people who left them will often remove them but we really shouldn't be demonizing scam-busters unless their success rate seriously drops off.

What about demonizing retired scambusters?  As far as I know, Vod quit the forum almost two months ago and is off sailing around now.  Some people who are posting here about his "rapid fire" action certainly have a different definition than me of "rapid fire". 

W.r.t. getting scammed and quick feedback, I have to admit, I've only heard the self-congratulatory claims that QS saves lives by this quick feedback, but I've never actually seen that story, please send me links.  On the other hand, I was the victim of a personal smear attack he perpetrated on me,  and he ran ndnhc through the mud unneccesarily for almost a week.  Ie, I've seen him wrong again and again and I can't really think of a time when he backed down and apologized.  I'm just saying Vod is inactive. QS is (thankfully, for the moment) removed from default trust, but he's still out there doing his power-hungry thingy.

From my observations, the "default trust" scheme currently going on really causes more harm than good.  It creates and unnecessary and unreliable sense of security for newbies who need to take the time to investigate before trading.  It creates a privileged class of people who can lord their feedback over others---whether or not they've traded with them.  It goes against the bitcoin ethos of being your own bank, making decisions for yourself, etc.  The only arguments for keeping it in place (which I've heard) come from those who are on default trust or are clearly working hard to get there and they say "but default trust helps newbies".  But these claims are not supported by evidence (that I've seen).