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

[JaredKaragen]

All the facts laid out being true:  I believe the red trust flag has been abused.


If this is untrue:
Correct me on how I am wrong;  I was very clear in my analysis; and my opinion will be re-evaluated.



I do see a lopsided fight.

I do see rules being broken.

*edit* this has been going on for so long, and its multi-faceted;  I am merely going off the single red trust I evaluated via my previous posts.  But this seems like a clear misuse of red trust.

[1715056202]

1715056202

[1715056202]

1715056202

[1715056202]

1715056202

[TECSHARE]

All the facts laid out being true:  I believe the red trust flag has been abused.


If this is untrue:
Correct me on how I am wrong;  I was very clear in my analysis; and my opinion will be re-evaluated.



I do see a lopsided fight.

I do see rules being broken.

*edit* this has been going on for so long, and its multi-faceted;  I am merely going off the single red trust I evaluated via my previous posts.  But this seems like a clear misuse of red trust.

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I know no one wants to spend any time on these issues, and most who do are met with retaliation, meaning even less people want to get involved. I would like to see Vod try to substantiate any of his claims to a 3rd party as he seems to be unwilling to any time I ask him to, but I am not holding my breath. Thanks again for your efforts.

[JaredKaragen]

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I know no one wants to spend any time on these issues, and most who do are met with retaliation, meaning even less people want to get involved. I would like to see Vod try to substantiate any of his claims to a 3rd party as he seems to be unwilling to any time I ask him to, but I am not holding my breath. Thanks again for your efforts.

TBH, all I had seen is a snarky reply, rather than actual substantiation....  Everything in the current situation relying on a previous instance of the same thing, etc... but never black and white;  always a feeling or emotion attached.

and I am talking about a Red-trust acceptable type of substantiation.


No prob at all;  I am still trying to remain a neutral 3rd in my dealings like this....   things can backfire on the good intentions tenfold... but hey...   from what I saw, it was simple:  black and white as per the above sentence.

This is why I said before that I hope we could just amicably end this;  because TBH, from my analysis the only way to keep a neutral and fair uncertainty, I needed to throw my own conceptions into check/question to remain so.   But I thought by saying what I said, in a direct way, but allowing for people to correct me; would be enough to prove my point or give detail to those who read it;  but seeing things spiral for another page... well....  here I am again =)


I am a suuuuuper patient person; but in no way could I ever be a professional teacher.    If I have to repeat myself to someone like I do a kid who asks the same question right after you answer that exact question:  I loose my shit.    Good thing i'm not a teacher, and by my post history... it has taken quite a lot to make me drop my filter the 3-4 times I have on this site.


You seen like an alright dude from the conversations we have had in the past.

Speaking from a position of trust: many OG members have had excellent dealings with you in the past and present.  Being an escrow, buying, selling, etc....   upstanding.
^^^^^^^^^^^^  This is why I believe red trust has been abused.   This is exactly what its for (nobody corrected me, so I keep my original interpretations).

This just doesn't make sense for people to drag this type of childish shit on for YEARS. (i'm almost 40 if you want to add another aspect of context)

[TECSHARE]

More abuse of the forum reporting system to silence criticism:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

TECSHARE: Am I always right?
suchmoon: No.
TECSHARE: You replied, but you didn't answer the question.

What a fucking clown. Oh wait, I can't call you that because using words that you have used would be "refractory". Oops, I did it again.

Next time when you ask a question please provide multiple choices so I can just tick a box to make you happy.

Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked.

Please check applicable boxes:    

Is my rating for Vod valid?:         YES [ ]      NO [ ]

Are Vod's ratings for me valid?:   YES [ ]      NO [ ]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Seems like you have done your research.

Been planning it ever since I had to walk in crutches 3 blocks twice a day in the coldest weather in 40 years, lol I am so ready to trade cold for snakes and corruption.

I'll put out a general call when I'm ready to sponsor those that would like to move to the area that will be least affected by climate change in the short to mid term.  

Suchmoon refuses to answer a direct question, so "some one" reports it to make sure they don't have to. Also a gif demonstrating Vod's sociopathic behavior in a humorous way, that clearly is disruptive and needs to be removed from a thread demonstrating Vod to be a liar. A humorous post about marlboroza was removed, and I also had a 7 year old post removed that was nothing more than a joke demonstrating some one is digging through years of my posts looking for peanuts in my turds to try to use against me.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

I did the deal with NO.

Thats hot.

_____________________________________________________________________

Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked.

Please check applicable boxes:   

Is my rating for Vod valid?:         YES [ ]      NO [ x ]

Are Vod's ratings for me valid?:   YES [ ]      NO [ x ]

Thank you for finally answering this question directly Suchmoon. Now a couple further questions. If Vod is leaving me invalid trust ratings why is he still in your trust list? Are you not directly supporting trust system abuse by including him?

Can you explain why my rating for Vod is not valid? Theymos himself said a trust rating for him over this issue was a valid use of the trust system. Why are we both wrong, and what exactly is invalid about my rating for him?

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant.

[JaredKaragen]

from my interpretation, neither persons were lead into a scam, or scammed out of money or goods.....  sooo...  that's my insight.

[suchmoon]

Thank you for finally answering this question directly Suchmoon. Now a couple further questions. If Vod is leaving me invalid trust ratings why is he still in your trust list? Are you not directly supporting trust system abuse by including him?

Can you explain why my rating for Vod is not valid? Theymos himself said a trust rating for him over this issue was a valid use of the trust system. Why are we both wrong, and what exactly is invalid about my rating for him?

You didn't give me any boxes to tick so I can't answer lest you whine again that my answers are not answers.

[Vod]

from my interpretation, neither persons were lead into a scam, or scammed out of money or goods.....  sooo...  that's my insight.

My feedback for Techy is purposely the exact same as his feedback towards me.  

Each time he complains he is being a hypocrite.  

[TwitchySeal]

hilariousandco => TECSHARE over 5 years ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=907230.msg9974095#msg9974095

You portray yourself as paranoid and the only person who is damaging your reputation is yourself by acting like a child and making up conspiracies like every other kid does here when something happens that they don't like. THE MODS MOVED MY THREAD ABOUT THE PRICE OF BITCOIN INTO SPECULATION! THIS IS CLEAR CENSORSHIP AND THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR INVESTMENT blah blah blah. Literally saw someone use that argument before. It gets tired.

It's clear you're the type of person that wouldn't ever admit their mistakes or where they could've handled something better as you're going to go on about this until the end of time rather than just say, yeah, I could've been the better man and removed the feedback and not allowed myself to be baited.

This is why you're paranoid and I don't take you seriously anymore. You're just making up conspiracy to suit your agenda. How does the trust system help the staff's paychecks? I think you being on the trust list certainly benefited your paychecks though because I think one of the main reasons you're very pissed is because no one will likely buy your overprice stuff anymore for the trusted positive feedback (and how very dare someone point out you can get the same thing you're selling elsewhere for cheaper! What was he thinking speaking out against a trusted member which is clearly out of line and not allowed! /sarcasm). And the staff also didn't moderate the trust or the trust you left, but you forced them to act to remove you from the trusted list. Your feedback is still there and always will be so what's the problem? The problem is you can't get your own way and people wont trade with you for the trust anymore. I must say I think it's funny how you don't want staff to moderate things but yet you wanted Armis' posts removed that you didn't like even though they weren't against the rules. You're a hypocrite and a classic case of only liking something until that same privilege comes back to bite them or (slightly) inconveniences them in some way. It's like the people who champion their right to free speech but yet don't like it when someone says something they don't like and then they immediately want them silenced.

Nothing has changed.

[TECSHARE]

from my interpretation, neither persons were lead into a scam, or scammed out of money or goods.....  sooo...  that's my insight.

So you think doxing users and reporting them to the IRS is not a valid reason to rate some one? Theymos himself said it was a valid reason to rate him negatively.

My feedback for Techy is purposely the exact same as his feedback towards me. 

Each time he complains he is being a hypocrite.   

I didn't dox anyone or report them to the IRS in revenge Vod. The fact that you did this is not disputed. You however have made zero substantiations about your claims against me in your ratings. This is a transparent attempt to extort me into removing your rating, Suchmoon even suggested I should remove the valid rating in order to convince you to remove yours. Seems kind of dishonest leveraging baseless negative ratings to try to get others to remove theirs doesn't it?

[TwitchySeal]

Seems kind of dishonest leveraging baseless negative ratings to try to get others to remove theirs doesn't it?

I agree with this statement.  If you believe someone deserves negative feed back, and you remove it simply to get them to remove theirs, users in the future will be unaware and more likely to be scammed.

[TECSHARE]

Seems kind of dishonest leveraging baseless negative ratings to try to get others to remove theirs doesn't it?

I agree with this statement.  If you believe someone deserves negative feed back, and you remove it simply to get them to remove theirs, users in the future will be unaware and more likely to be scammed.

But the act of leaving baseless ratings in the attempt is excusable to you right? Wouldn't want to actually agree with me when you are on a mission to impugn my character in retribution for me harboring political opinions you don't agree with now would you?

[TwitchySeal]

Seems kind of dishonest leveraging baseless negative ratings to try to get others to remove theirs doesn't it?

I agree with this statement.  If you believe someone deserves negative feed back, and you remove it simply to get them to remove theirs, users in the future will be unaware and more likely to be scammed.

But the act of leaving baseless ratings in the attempt is excusable to you right? Wouldn't want to actually agree with me when you are on a mission to impugn my character in retribution for me harboring political opinions you don't agree with now would you?

It goes both ways.

Including people you've never interacted with simply to try and get yourself on DT, will result in future users will being more likely to be scammed.

What changed, is that TECHSHARE reached DT1 (strength 0 instead of negative) a few hours ago (https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx).

Yeah, for the last few weeks he has been putting aside his morals and belief structure to get back on DT.   He stopped distrusting everyone and started trusting many others, hoping for retaliatory trust.  It was a good example for Theymos to see just how easily idiots can get on DT right now.

This is correct. TECSHARE has been trying to get reciprocal inclusions for a few months now. Its finally paid off. The DT1s that he has nothing in common with except for reciprocal inclusions are:

WhiteManWhite (Russian local board poster)
Kalemder (Turkish local board poster)
bobita (Turkish local board poster)
Matthias9515 (Turkish local board poster) (left a positive trust for TS on 6/29, was added by TS a month later, during the first week that Matthias was on DT1)
mhanbostanci (Turkish local board poster)

He's never interacted with these users as they all post exclusively on their local boards (except when they make the exception to visit Meta or Reputation to address trust-related issues). I'm going to assume that he doesn't speak enough Russian or Turkish to understand the ratings left by these users and (for the most part) they don't speak enough English to understand his, and the only reason he included them was to gain enough votes to be back out of the negatives on DT. Without them, he would be back at -4.

He also included two other Turkish posters soon after they were added to DT1, PHI1618 and by rallier whom he subsequently dropped (I imagine it was for not getting the reciprocal trust he was hoping for)

He's still waiting for Vispilio to reciprocate, probably unaware that he just fell off DT1 for not having the minimum number of inclusions.

Outside of OP's issue with ABitNut, this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be discouraged in the DT system.

In the end, you're both entitled to your opinion and if you both believe that the feed back you've left if valid, neither of you should remove it.  imo it would actually be kind of unethical to, unless you believe the other has changed their ways.

[TECSHARE]

Seems kind of dishonest leveraging baseless negative ratings to try to get others to remove theirs doesn't it?

I agree with this statement.  If you believe someone deserves negative feed back, and you remove it simply to get them to remove theirs, users in the future will be unaware and more likely to be scammed.

But the act of leaving baseless ratings in the attempt is excusable to you right? Wouldn't want to actually agree with me when you are on a mission to impugn my character in retribution for me harboring political opinions you don't agree with now would you?

It goes both ways.

Including people you've never interacted with simply to try and get yourself on DT, will result in future users will being more likely to be scammed.

What changed, is that TECHSHARE reached DT1 (strength 0 instead of negative) a few hours ago (https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx).

Yeah, for the last few weeks he has been putting aside his morals and belief structure to get back on DT.   He stopped distrusting everyone and started trusting many others, hoping for retaliatory trust.  It was a good example for Theymos to see just how easily idiots can get on DT right now.

This is correct. TECSHARE has been trying to get reciprocal inclusions for a few months now. Its finally paid off. The DT1s that he has nothing in common with except for reciprocal inclusions are:

WhiteManWhite (Russian local board poster)
Kalemder (Turkish local board poster)
bobita (Turkish local board poster)
Matthias9515 (Turkish local board poster) (left a positive trust for TS on 6/29, was added by TS a month later, during the first week that Matthias was on DT1)
mhanbostanci (Turkish local board poster)

He's never interacted with these users as they all post exclusively on their local boards (except when they make the exception to visit Meta or Reputation to address trust-related issues). I'm going to assume that he doesn't speak enough Russian or Turkish to understand the ratings left by these users and (for the most part) they don't speak enough English to understand his, and the only reason he included them was to gain enough votes to be back out of the negatives on DT. Without them, he would be back at -4.

He also included two other Turkish posters soon after they were added to DT1, PHI1618 and by rallier whom he subsequently dropped (I imagine it was for not getting the reciprocal trust he was hoping for)

He's still waiting for Vispilio to reciprocate, probably unaware that he just fell off DT1 for not having the minimum number of inclusions.

Outside of OP's issue with ABitNut, this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be discouraged in the DT system.

In the end, you're both entitled to your opinion and if you both believe that the feed back you've left if valid, neither of you should remove it.  imo it would actually be kind of unethical to, unless you believe the other has changed their ways.

Except that accusation is totally baseless. You know how much interaction I had with these people how exactly? So because you don't see it in public it simply didn't happen, and you are free to use that assumption to make the further assumption I am doing something harmful or illicit simply based on the fact YOU don't agree with my inclusions? Sure is a pretty long string of baseless accusations and assumptions you need to craft to impugn my character. Additionally, even if you thought my inclusions were bad, that is what exclusions are for. That is not what negative ratings are for.

When I include some one, I am fishing for inclusions. When they add me and I add them later, I am only adding them because they added me. When I exclude some one it is retaliatory. Of course you are all free to use your inclusions and exclusions as you please, but when I do it, it is evidence of malfeasance simply because you don't agree with my choices. Like I said, these accusations are baseless and based on fiction writing, not facts.

Interesting, you managed to use all of this to deflect from my question and avoid responding to it...

Seems kind of dishonest leveraging baseless negative ratings to try to get others to remove theirs doesn't it?

I agree with this statement.  If you believe someone deserves negative feed back, and you remove it simply to get them to remove theirs, users in the future will be unaware and more likely to be scammed.

But the act of leaving baseless ratings in the attempt is excusable to you right? Wouldn't want to actually agree with me when you are on a mission to impugn my character in retribution for me harboring political opinions you don't agree with now would you?

So attempting to extort others into removing trust ratings by using baseless trust ratings is excusable to you? That is not a "goes both ways" kind of argument, it is a one way thing. My rating is not based on opinion, it is based on indisputable documented factual events. His ratings are based on fiction writing and suspicions crafted specifically with the intent of extortion.

[TwitchySeal]

Except that accusation is totally baseless. You know how much interaction I had with these people how exactly? So because you don't see it in public it simply didn't happen, and you are free to use that assumption to make the further assumption I am doing something harmful or illicit simply based on the fact YOU don't agree with my inclusions?

I disagree.

Given all the evidence, plus the way you've addressed the situation, it's pretty reasonable to assume that you had little or no relationship with them and only included them to game the DT system.

[Vod]

I didn't dox anyone or report them to the IRS in revenge Vod.

I never said you did, Techy.

I'm just saying my feedback is identical to yours, so if you complain, you are a hypocrite.  

[marlboroza]

Suchmoon refuses to answer a direct question, so "some one" reports it to make sure they don't have to.

Can someone from TECSHARE's trust network please tell him that suchmoon answered his question?

Can you explain why my rating for Vod is not valid? Theymos himself said a trust rating for him over this issue was a valid use of the trust system. Why are we both wrong, and what exactly is invalid about my rating for him?

Your rating might or might not be valid, it depends on how you read and understand Theymos's message. To determine what Theymos said or wanted to say, one should not cherrypick theymos' words:

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

Second part (yep, that part you don't want to see) is more important than first part, theymos said that tagging Vod is appropriate usage of red trust but as Vod regret doing it you should forgive him and not tag him/remove tag.

But, if you cherrypick words, you might conclude that theymos said meriters should also be tagged:

For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust[...]

Why cherrypicking red-trust?

[suchmoon]

Theymos himself said it was a valid reason to rate him negatively.

Would it be the same theymos whom you don't trust (exclude from your trust network)? Interesting source to cherry-pick for validating your trust rating.

You also haven't shown

evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way

so you must be using some other "standard" to substantiate your rating.

Based on your own words and actions, and claims such as "mentally ill" (unproven by the provided reference) I must conclude that you posted this rating as an attack in your 5-year long personal squabble with Vod.

[TECSHARE]

Except that accusation is totally baseless. You know how much interaction I had with these people how exactly? So because you don't see it in public it simply didn't happen, and you are free to use that assumption to make the further assumption I am doing something harmful or illicit simply based on the fact YOU don't agree with my inclusions?

I disagree.

Given all the evidence, plus the way you've addressed the situation, it's pretty reasonable to assume that you had little or no relationship with them and only included them to game the DT system.

There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.

Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. These same accusations and assumptions could literally be applied to anyone actively using custom trust lists and is based on assumptions, not facts. The same accusations could be arbitrarily be applied to literally any user actively using custom trust lists you don't agree with.

These accusations against myself, and several of those users, are nothing more than a transparent attempt to maintain control of the trust system so they are free to abuse it at will. Including more users into the default trust dilutes their ability to abuse it against others. These accusations were made as a back door attempt to main control within a small group of users, not as accusations based in fact.

I didn't dox anyone or report them to the IRS in revenge Vod.

I never said you did, Techy.

I'm just saying my feedback is identical to yours, so if you complain, you are a hypocrite.   

By definition they aren't identical then. The rating I left for you is based on factual events not under dispute. Your ratings for me are based on assumptions, creative writing, and a desire to attempt to extort me into removing the valid rating I left for you. You have a years long history of abusing the trust system against me. I have only ever left you this one negative rating, and it is absolutely valid.

Theymos himself said it was a valid reason to rate him negatively.

Would it be the same theymos whom you don't trust (exclude from your trust network)? Interesting source to cherry-pick for validating your trust rating.

You also haven't shown

evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws [...] documented in an objective and observable way

so you must be using some other "standard" to substantiate your rating.

Based on your own words and actions, and claims such as "mentally ill" (unproven by the provided reference) I must conclude that you posted this rating as an attack in your 5-year long personal squabble with Vod.

Theymos's exclusion choices are not justification for a rating. His specific statement that his behavior would be a valid rating is a totally different circumstance. I didn't rate Vod because Theymos said that, I rated him because his behavior in doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS was despicable, dangerous, illegal, and should not be an acceptable precedent for the forum. The fact that Theymos stated it would be a valid rating is simply supporting evidence, considering he is the one who outlined all of the parameters for the use of the trust system.

Are those the standards of the current system or not? On one hand you argue I should follow those standards because it is what I am advocating for, but in the same breath you excuse the lack of these standards when used against me in a transparent attempt at extortion. What Vod did was in fact illegal.

"18 U.S. Code § 2261A provides:

    “Whoever—

    (2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
    (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
    (B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …

    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”"

As many have already pointed out, he was well known to be a forum treasurer, holding a significant amount of funds, announcing his private residence in public could quite reasonably be considered putting him at significant risk. This combined with Vod's clear attempt to harass and intimidate puts his actions well within the realm of this statute.

As far as the "mentally ill" part, that is directly observable, but in spite of that I have already offered to remove the rating, edit that part out, and replace it with the factually documented rating for doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS. If I do this would you then consider the rating valid?

Funny this is leads you to conclude this is "an attack in your 5-year long personal squabble with Vod." Yet in all that time I never once retaliated with a negative rating in spite of him being documented abusing the trust system against me over and over and over again, and begin forced to remove those abusive ratings. Of course I must stand by stoically for years while being attacked, but when there is a very valid reason to rate him, some one who is constantly impugning the actions of others, it is just me pursuing a vendetta and unilaterally judged invalid by you. This man runs around constantly judging others and destroying reputations. He shouldn't be allowed to treat it as his personal plaything, and he shouldn't be above being punished under the same system he regularly, repeatedly, and continually abuses.

[nutildah]

There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.

Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again:

You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community:

That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me.

Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza.

The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT.

Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September.

[Vod]

These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with.

Hey - look at you Techy!  You are starting to realize why your feedback on me is not valid.  Good for you!