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

[TECSHARE]

More pointless antagonism from Vod. Obviously retribution for demonstrating he is in fact a liar here. Also kind of pointless as he has already negative rated me for this, something the person most potentially effected by it doesn't care about to the point that they still include me in their trust list. Of course that doesn't stop Vod from scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately seeking excuses to abuse the trust system to serve his petty vendettas.

Vod   2020-02-23   Reference   ""...by posting my private messages multiple times without permission, I would say not trusting him with any personal information is perfectly reaonable."

Techy also posts private messages without permission and agrees that not trusting him with any personal information is reasonable. See Reference."

[1715118009]

1715118009

[1715118009]

1715118009

[1715118009]

1715118009

[marlboroza]

More pointless antagonism from Vod. Obviously retribution for demonstrating he is in fact a liar here. Also kind of pointless as he has already negative rated me for this.

Vod   2020-02-23   Reference   ""...by posting my private messages multiple times without permission, I would say not trusting him with any personal information is perfectly reaonable."

Techy also posts private messages without permission and agrees that not trusting him with any personal information is reasonable. See Reference."

But you agree with Vod's neutral feedback, take a look:

Since he has already repeatedly demonstrated in this thread he has no concern for my privacy by posting my private messages multiple times without permission, I would say not trusting him with any personal information is perfectly reasonable.

Your words...

Of course that doesn't stop Vod from scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately seeking excuses to abuse the trust system

According to you and points from random users in that thread, this topic should be locked, there is no trust abuse.

[Vod]

More pointless antagonism from Vod. Obviously retribution for demonstrating he is in fact a liar here. Also kind of pointless as he has already negative rated me for this, something the person most potentially effect by it doesn't care about to the point that they still include me in their trust list. Of course that doesn't stop Vod from scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately seeking excuses to abuse the trust system to serve his petty vendettas.

Vod   2020-02-23   Reference   ""...by posting my private messages multiple times without permission, I would say not trusting him with any personal information is perfectly reaonable."

Techy also posts private messages without permission and agrees that not trusting him with any personal information is reasonable. See Reference."

Curious why you always post things that are "obvious".  

What is wrong now Techy?  I followed your example closely, minus the spelling error.  Trying to be part of the "guild".

If you claim (many times) that posting PMs without permission is untrustworthy, then you are untrustworthy.   /logic

[TECSHARE]

Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy.

The words you are taking out of context and completely mischaracterizing were in relation to an exchange of value with a user who was very clearly out of line. There is a difference between PMs of a casual manner, and ones between a buyer and a seller. Of course, you know all of this, but that doesn't stop you from struggling to find any excuse to use the trust system as your personal toy to serve as a tool of retribution.

[Vod]

Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy.

Then they don't deserve to be in the guild, because according to you, posting private messages is wrong.   You posted a private message without permission, and then you lied about it then, and just again now.  

There was no victim, and that is why the trust is neutral.

[TECSHARE]

Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy.

Then they don't deserve to be in the guild, because according to you, posting private messages is wrong.   You posted a private message without permission, and then you lied about it then, and just again now.  

There was no victim, and that is why the trust is neutral.

What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating.

Vod   2020-02-04   Reference   "Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. "

[Vod]

What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating.

Vod   2020-02-04   Reference   "Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. "

Have you asked for help yet?   Click on the Reference link!   ^^

How does my logic state I need to remove a red rating if I place a neutral one?

This thread is just pointless antagonism from you.

[TECSHARE]

What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating.

Vod   2020-02-04   Reference   "Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. "

Have you asked for help yet?   Click on the Reference link!   ^^

How does my logic state I need to remove a red rating if I place a neutral one?

This thread is just pointless antagonism from you.

You just admitted there is no victim, which is why you said the rating was neutral. You just literally admitted there is no reason for it to be a negative rating to justify your neutral rating, but here you are justifying it anyway with your double speak.

I know you have trouble substantiating any of your claims Vod, but a reference is not a quote. Quote any lies I made. If it happened that shouldn't be hard should it? Of course it never happened, so quoting this supposed lie is quite impossible isn't it?

[Vod]

Your wish we could discuss this logically was another lie - you want to play word games.

Lock this thread and stop antagonizing me for no reason, bozo.  

[TECSHARE]

Your wish we could discuss this logically was another lie - you want to play word games.

Lock this thread and stop antagonizing me for no reason, bozo.  

Great discussion as usual Vod.

[Vod]

I'm crashing - been working all night on the new site.

Techy, if you are serious, think about a neutral third party who can mediate discussions.  I don't believe you are capable of having a conversation without wordplay.  :/

[TECSHARE]

I'm crashing - been working all night on the new site.

Techy, if you are serious, think about a neutral third party who can mediate discussions.  I don't believe you are capable of having a conversation without wordplay.  :/

Right. My wordplay. That explains why you can never make any quotes to back up any of your frivolous claims.

Oh I would absolutely LOVE that Vod. Now who would you suggest that is neutral? Unfortunately I don't think anyone truly neutral wants to be within 4000 feet of you based on your irrational and vindictive behavior.

[JaredKaragen]

I'm crashing - been working all night on the new site.

Techy, if you are serious, think about a neutral third party who can mediate discussions.  I don't believe you are capable of having a conversation without wordplay.  :/

one or two pages back.

two, maybe three key points to address I mentioned.... my uncertainties about certain facts or interpretations.  The rest of the analysis was not refuted by anyone, and I believe it is sound.


This would clear up most of it to this point;  and it would be a fresh slate to go by afterwards.

[TECSHARE]

I'm crashing - been working all night on the new site.

Techy, if you are serious, think about a neutral third party who can mediate discussions.  I don't believe you are capable of having a conversation without wordplay.  :/

one or two pages back.

two, maybe three key points to address I mentioned.... my uncertainties about certain facts or interpretations.  The rest of the analysis was not refuted by anyone, and I believe it is sound.


This would clear up most of it to this point;  and it would be a fresh slate to go by afterwards.

I get that you attempted to serve as a neutral 3rd party, and I tried to engage with you and answer your questions as much as possible. I do not feel as if Vod has been as forthcoming. It is not really mediation if only one side is engaging and being questioned.

[JaredKaragen]

I get that you attempted to serve as a neutral 3rd party, and I tried to engage with you and answer your questions as much as possible. I do not feel as if Vod has been as forthcoming. It is not really mediation if only one side is engaging and being questioned.

I hope those points get attention... I think you were pretty complete in your explanation of what the situation was from your end; and given all other info; 

I think just those few points of unknown to me (use of red trust, and is theymos's old words/actions still applicable in todays date) should add completion to my analysis.

[TECSHARE]

I get that you attempted to serve as a neutral 3rd party, and I tried to engage with you and answer your questions as much as possible. I do not feel as if Vod has been as forthcoming. It is not really mediation if only one side is engaging and being questioned.

I hope those points get attention... I think you were pretty complete in your explanation of what the situation was from your end; and given all other info; 

I think just those few points of unknown to me (use of red trust, and is theymos's old words/actions still applicable in todays date) should add completion to my analysis.

If you think I can provide any further explanation to answer your questions, if you would please, ask them one more time and I will attempt to fill in the gaps. One thing I think you have not really addressed though is the fact that Vod refuses to substantiate any of his claims against me with any kind of evidence. IMO that is more relevant than Theymos's opinion which may or may not have changed. Vod's inability to substantiate any of his claims pretty well demonstrates that the ratings have no basis and he left them as a form of a personal attack and not as a legitimate use of the trust system.

One other thing you might want to review is a recent exchange we had earlier in this thread:

Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy.

Then they don't deserve to be in the guild, because according to you, posting private messages is wrong.   You posted a private message without permission, and then you lied about it then, and just again now. 

There was no victim, and that is why the trust is neutral.

What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating.

Vod   2020-02-04   Reference   "Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. "

You can see in an attempt to justify a new neutral rating he just left, he admits there is no victim for this particular incident, explaining this is why the rating was neutral. Yet a previous negative rating he left for the same incident still stands. He is contradicting himself and undermining his own justification for leaving the negative rating to justify the neutral rating. This demonstrates clearly based on his own words, that he knows a negative rating is not warranted, and he simply can't keep his story straight, because it is a fabrication.

[Vod]

OK Techy,

It's fitting you use wordplay to indicate non interest in mediation.

The first step is to stop the dishonesty.  You can say "I don't understand Vod's substantiation", or "I can't find your quote" but if you continue to lie and say I didn't back it up with facts, then nothing will be accomplished here.

There is no one within 4,000 feet of me, so if you decide you want to mediate, stop the word play, stop the false accusations, and give me a neutral name to mediate.

 

[TECSHARE]

OK Techy,

It's fitting you use wordplay to indicate non interest in mediation.

The first step is to stop the dishonesty.  You can say "I don't understand Vod's substantiation", or "I can't find your quote" but if you continue to lie and say I didn't back it up with facts, then nothing will be accomplished here.

There is no one within 4,000 feet of me, so if you decide you want to mediate, stop the word play, stop the false accusations, and give me a neutral name to mediate.

 

I would love to say I don't understand it, but to do that I would need you to actually present your substantiation first. Please quote your substantiation Vod. If I am lying, prove me wrong, it is very easy to do. Just quote it.

[JaredKaragen]

I've been the target of his finger for almost 5.5 years.  I'd be curious what percentage of Techy's posts contain my name.  :/

Thank you JaredKaragen for bring attention to my two negative trust entries against the OP.  Is the general consensus they are valid?

I have stated who I trust, and I won't be making major changes soon.  I have to finish a gift I think the community needs and will really enjoy.

I think in simplest forms for the recent neg trust that I analyzed:
If we hold Theymos to be on a pedistal of "my word is law"... then;  TEC can not be on DT.

It was the easiest way for him to be removed back then,

and since things are vastly different on the forum now;  

Assuming the above about theymos is to be held as law:  your action continue that state of status quo by giving him that flag could be interpreted as ok;  even though the flag system itself is to warn people about being scammed, ripped off or mislead (on the same level) by the individual getting the flag.   If I am misinterpreting what the flag system is for;  please correct me now....  but this is how I see it to be used.   My recent red flag was to warn of a developer of a project that has mass investment, only to ignore the investors and produce nothing except losses.    I see this as a reason to give the trust hit... I  admit, I need to go back, and do my own little but more of digging on it as well;  but the facts stood up to him being connected to such a thing.


This is why;   Its not a valid flag "prima face", but it is deemed necessary to return the status quo.    IF the above is not correct... well....   You know my feelings by now I would think.

I'm not sure about the second trust flag;  as I don't think I even looked into it....   I myself removed myself from default trust and only have people added that I have personally done transactions/personal dealings with; or have never steered me wrong.

As an outsider....   Its a tough thing to sort all of this out.   But at least now I know;  and TBH:   I do feel for everyone involved in this.    

Hopefully... something amicable can come around.  It has been nearly 6 years...  The odds are in your favor for things to change for the better.

That's the meat of it.

Its centered on how red trust was used and why.  I believe it is for obvious or proven scammers, faulty devs, etc....  people whom are a detriment to your security in transaction, or to be mislead in such a manner.... not to change a persons status based on a personal belief or something not in line with the aforementioned.

was red trust misused?   or did I mis interpret how its supposed to be used?  because;  if the concept of it being issued to continue theymos's removal from tecshare on DT is valid still;  then is it ok to misuse red trust in this instance?


is theymos' old word/action still law with todays vastly different system and rule set??

*edit* added formatting to quote and more description

[TECSHARE]

I've been the target of his finger for almost 5.5 years.  I'd be curious what percentage of Techy's posts contain my name.  :/

Thank you JaredKaragen for bring attention to my two negative trust entries against the OP.  Is the general consensus they are valid?

I have stated who I trust, and I won't be making major changes soon.  I have to finish a gift I think the community needs and will really enjoy.

I think in simplest forms for the recent neg trust that I analyzed:
If we hold Theymos to be on a pedistal of "my word is law"... then;  TEC can not be on DT.

It was the easiest way for him to be removed back then,

and since things are vastly different on the forum now;  

Assuming the above about theymos is to be held as law:  your action continue that state of status quo by giving him that flag could be interpreted as ok;  even though the flag system itself is to warn people about being scammed, ripped off or mislead (on the same level) by the individual getting the flag.   If I am misinterpreting what the flag system is for;  please correct me now....  but this is how I see it to be used.   My recent red flag was to warn of a developer of a project that has mass investment, only to ignore the investors and produce nothing except losses.    I see this as a reason to give the trust hit... I  admit, I need to go back, and do my own little but more of digging on it as well;  but the facts stood up to him being connected to such a thing.


This is why;   Its not a valid flag "prima face", but it is deemed necessary to return the status quo.    IF the above is not correct... well....   You know my feelings by now I would think.

I'm not sure about the second trust flag;  as I don't think I even looked into it....   I myself removed myself from default trust and only have people added that I have personally done transactions/personal dealings with; or have never steered me wrong.

As an outsider....   Its a tough thing to sort all of this out.   But at least now I know;  and TBH:   I do feel for everyone involved in this.    

Hopefully... something amicable can come around.  It has been nearly 6 years...  The odds are in your favor for things to change for the better.

That's the meat of it.

Its centered on how red trust was used and why.  I believe it is for obvious or proven scammers, faulty devs, etc....  people whom are a detriment to your security in transaction, or to be mislead in such a manner.... not to change a persons status based on a personal belief or something not in line with the aforementioned.

was red trust misused?   or did I mis interpret how its supposed to be used?  because;  if the concept of it being issued to continue theymos's removal from tecshare on DT is valid still;  then is it ok to misuse red trust in this instance?


is theymos' old word/action still law with todays vastly different system and rule set??

*edit* added formatting to quote and more description

I thought I already addressed this but I will try again. Theymos had excluded me in the past. Theymos no longer excludes me. Theymos currently excludes Vod. Theymos has made it clear he wants the users to be the ones to collectively decide who is on default trust, so it is not appropriate to just say "Well Theymos said" that one time, and it is forever scripture.

Even IF you want to take that position, it is worth noting, as I said Theymos currently excludes Vod, but does not exclude me. That is an explicit statement Theymos does not think Vod should be on the default trust, and at worst he is neutral on the position of me being on the default trust currently. Regardless of what Theymos thinks, it does not validate Vod's behavior or use of the trust system. Theymos has made it clear he does not want to be the sole arbiter of who is on the default trust, which is why he enabled voting on it. His vote counts just as much as anyone else's.

Vod brought this up as a distraction from having to address any of these issues himself. He is unable to substantiate any of the ratings he has left for me, when asked to, he just repeatedly claims he did already and refuses to quote it. I am kind of feeling like you are treating me guilty until proven innocent and expecting me to prove my innocence and not expecting Vod to prove any of his accusations. So far all of your questions have been focused at me, and I have done my best to respond to them while Vod avoids interacting with you completely. I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years. Why is it you feel Vod does not have to substantiate any of his claims against me exactly? This is starting to feel decidedly one sided.