Vod just left negative feedback for iCEBREAKER after he left Vod negative rating

[BadBear]

Vod is just being a dick, not making an honest accusation that he could reasonably believe to be true.

So are you to be fair. You troll a lot, this looks like more of the same. Do you feel that you can leave Vod feedback, but he isn't allowed to do the same?

[1714942617]

1714942617

[1714942617]

1714942617

[1714942617]

1714942617

[1714942617]

1714942617

[iCEBREAKER]

I think the easiest solution would be a signed message. I agree that the trust should really not have ever been left.

It is up to you but whatever you do I would suggest not starting any kind of hate campaign.

You're assuming I've publicly posted an address which could be used to sign a message.

I haven't, except in PMs.

The recipients of those PMs (Carnth, DeadTerra and Friedcat) have better things to do than referee Vod's slap fights.

Even if they didn't, Vod could still say my private key was "possibly hacked" because it's not a refutable claim.

Given these facts, do you see an alternative besides "hate campaign?"   

Maybe Thermos or BadBear will hold Vod to the same high standard they held TECSHARE, and remove him from default trust because of his demonstrated abusive malfeasance.

[takagari]

So suddenly icebreaker needs to prove himself. Just like u had to fight to prove u was Canadian.

BBecause some child with a god complex is abusing a system?
It's pretty clear what the system for. It says it right beside that little point you click.

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

Not  because your  but hurt for being picked on or questioned

[Quickseller]

I think the easiest solution would be a signed message. I agree that the trust should really not have ever been left.

It is up to you but whatever you do I would suggest not starting any kind of hate campaign.

You're assuming I've publicly posted an address which could be used to sign a message.

I haven't, except in PMs.

The recipients of those PMs (Carnth, DeadTerra and Friedcat) have better things to do than referee Vod's slap fights.

Even if they didn't, Vod could still say my private key was "possibly hacked" because it's not a refutable claim.

Given these facts, do you see an alternative besides "hate campaign?"   

Maybe Thermos or BadBear will hold Vod to the same high standard they held TECSHARE, and remove him from default trust because of his demonstrated abusive malfeasance.

i think that is the easiest solution. Weather or not you want to try to prove your self this way is ultimately up to you.

[dogie]

Anyway.... can people stop prodding the Vod please, someone's going to lose an arm sooner or later.

So you're okay with people being hit with negative trust if they criticize Vod in a meaningful way, for something that he should be criticized for?

I'm not condoning or affirming any action he has taken, its just a bit tiring when there's 6 different VOD threads in meta.

[takagari]

Anyway.... can people stop prodding the Vod please, someone's going to lose an arm sooner or later.

So you're okay with people being hit with negative trust if they criticize Vod in a meaningful way, for something that he should be criticized for?

I'm not condoning or affirming any action he has taken, its just a bit tiring when there's 6 different VOD threads in meta.

Than maybe something should be said or done.
labeling people scammers because you disagree or they disagree with you is an abuse of the system and an abusive use of power

[iCEBREAKER]

You're assuming I've publicly posted an address which could be used to sign a message.

I haven't, except in PMs.

The recipients of those PMs (Carnth, DeadTerra and Friedcat) have better things to do than referee Vod's slap fights.

Even if they didn't, Vod could still say my private key was "possibly hacked" because it's not a refutable claim.

Given these facts, do you see an alternative besides "hate campaign?"   

Maybe Thermos or BadBear will hold Vod to the same high standard they held TECSHARE, and remove him from default trust because of his demonstrated abusive malfeasance.

i think that is the easiest solution. Weather or not you want to try to prove your self this way is ultimately up to you.

How can I prove that my account hasn't been "possibly hacked?"   

As I've already tried to explain, it is not a refutable claim, short of metaphysical certainty.   

I cannot prove my account is impossible to hack, although common sense indicates very few hackers would be capable of emulating my distinctive writing style.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not he accused.

Vod made the accusation, so let him prove it.

Your suggestion that I prove myself innocent is obnoxious and contrary to logic.  Sorry, nothing personal.  I know you are trying to help, but IMO you are doing it wrong.

Maybe Thermos could send a "Have you been hacked?" email to my account's address.  That wouldn't prove anything, but perhaps be Good Enough.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I still don't see how any of vod's recent trust ratings fits with "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."

[Quickseller]

the burden is on the accuser

I agree.

how can I prove my account hasn't been "possibly hacked"

you could possibly give someone like tomatocage access to your account to see the PM with your address that you could later sign a message with.

Is this somewhat of an invasion of privacy? Yes.

Would I personally do this to prove my account was not hacked? No.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

For the record, theymos removed me from DefaultTrust when I gave negative trust to gweedo, who made a number of very misleading attack threads on me and my businesses. Here's the PM I received from theymos:

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.

Did the forum's mission of free speech disappear?!

[iCEBREAKER]

the burden is on the accuser

I agree.

how can I prove my account hasn't been "possibly hacked"

you could possibly give someone like tomatocage access to your account to see the PM with your address that you could later sign a message with.

Is this somewhat of an invasion of privacy? Yes.

Would I personally do this to prove my account was not hacked? No.

Of course you wouldn't.  It's asinine to expect the accused to prove themselves innocent.

It's asinine because you can't prove innocence, only demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Vod could just say that my private key has been "possibly" compromised along with my account, and I'd be back to square one.

You can't refute a slippery weasel claim like "possibly."

Over the past 3+ years, I've had multiple successful transactions with several people on this board, but none of those count in my favor.

Vod's baseless, evidence-free accusation carries more weight, according to our broken default trust system.   

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

So are you to be fair. You troll a lot, this looks like more of the same. Do you feel that you can leave Vod feedback, but he isn't allowed to do the same?

The difference is that Vod is currently in the default trust network. When I was in default trust, there was an expectation that you leave negative feedback only for untrustworthy actions, not leave negative feedback as retribution, or 'tit for tat', or as a punitive measure.

People who have done so at one time or another (me, TECSHARE, etc) quickly got removed from DefaultTrust. I fail to see how the circumstances are different in this case. Sure, Vod should be given some consideration for the tagging work he's done, but that consideration should be for good-faith mistakes, not intentional bad-faith actions.

[iCEBREAKER]

Vod is just being a dick, not making an honest accusation that he could reasonably believe to be true.

So are you to be fair. You troll a lot, this looks like more of the same. Do you feel that you can leave Vod feedback, but he isn't allowed to do the same?

To be fair, I'm not on the default trust list.  Nor did I make a dishonest accusation that I could not reasonably believe to be true.

The point was made (and enforced) in the TECSHARE imbroglio that default trust list members are held to a much higher standard than Joe Sixpost.

If Vod wasn't on the default trust list, I wouldn't GAS about his feedback.

Also, I've removed the feedback to which he originally objected.  At the time I left it, I wasn't aware TECSHARE had been removed from default trust.

And yes, I troll a lot.  But that's all in good fun, and I don't make irrefutable weasel accusations like "possibly hacked account" from a position of authority.

Plus, at least one other person who does not troll a lot (Quickseller) has stated that he finds Vod's behavior reprehensible and unacceptable.

Thanks for looking into this matter.  Please reconsider your opinion, minus the false equivalence and ad hom.   

[hashie]

Also, I've removed the feedback to which he originally objected.

You shouldn't have!

[iCEBREAKER]

Also, I've removed the feedback to which he originally objected.

You shouldn't have!

Although made in good faith, it was partially factually incorrect w/r/t TECSHARE's default trust status.

You are welcome to replace it... 

[rugrats]

Whoa. This changes everything. If we go by Theymos' standard, a number of people on the DefaultList and Depth Level 2 is liable to be penalized.

For the record, theymos removed me from DefaultTrust when I gave negative trust to gweedo, who made a number of very misleading attack threads on me and my businesses. Here's the PM I received from theymos:

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.

Did the forum's mission of free speech disappear?!

[TECSHARE]

Whoa. This changes everything. If we go by Theymos' standard, a number of people on the DefaultList and Depth Level 2 is liable to be penalized.

For the record, theymos removed me from DefaultTrust when I gave negative trust to gweedo, who made a number of very misleading attack threads on me and my businesses. Here's the PM I received from theymos:

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.

Did the forum's mission of free speech disappear?!

Magically rules and standards don't apply when it means the staff have to be responsible for obeying rules they have no problem enforcing upon others.

[Tomatocage]

IMHO everybody participating in the practice of leaving negative Trust in retaliation should cease this immediately. This is not what the Trust system is for, and doing so only diminishes the value of our ratings. Also we should go back and audit our Trust ratings periodically so that only those who are legitimately untrustworthy (ie. they've been proven to be scammers or walk/talk like a scammer and want you to send first without escrow, etc) remain with negative Trust. Finally, Trust ratings should not be set in stone. If someone gets lit red because of a loan default, but then eventually pays it back, I feel that the negative rating should be removed. Gotta keep in mind that everybody has their own life and their own life issues to deal with, and sometimes shit happens. And yes, I realize I should probably do a better job of heeding my own advice.

[MrTeal]

IMHO everybody participating in the practice of leaving negative Trust in retaliation should cease this immediately. This is not what the Trust system is for, and doing so only diminishes the value of our ratings. Also we should go back and audit our Trust ratings periodically so that only those who are legitimately untrustworthy (ie. they've been proven to be scammers or walk/talk like a scammer and want you to send first without escrow, etc) remain with negative Trust. Finally, Trust ratings should not be set in stone. If someone gets lit red because of a loan default, but then eventually pays it back, I feel that the negative rating should be removed. Gotta keep in mind that everybody has their own life and their own life issues to deal with, and sometimes shit happens. And yes, I realize I should probably do a better job of heeding my own advice.

It'd be nice to be able to modify a feedback instead of just delete it. I don't like the idea of just removing negative trust since people should know what has gone on in the past, but in your example it would be nice to just switch the negative to a neutral while leaving the reference link and an edited comment in place. You can always delete and repost it, but that's another couple steps that need to be done.

[DiamondCardz]

IMHO everybody participating in the practice of leaving negative Trust in retaliation should cease this immediately. This is not what the Trust system is for, and doing so only diminishes the value of our ratings. Also we should go back and audit our Trust ratings periodically so that only those who are legitimately untrustworthy (ie. they've been proven to be scammers or walk/talk like a scammer and want you to send first without escrow, etc) remain with negative Trust. Finally, Trust ratings should not be set in stone. If someone gets lit red because of a loan default, but then eventually pays it back, I feel that the negative rating should be removed. Gotta keep in mind that everybody has their own life and their own life issues to deal with, and sometimes shit happens. And yes, I realize I should probably do a better job of heeding my own advice.

Thank you. No more "he started it" bullshit, please. Retaliating to negative feedback with a trust war is absolutely childish. PM each other and sort it out like real people! I do audit my own trust ratings every once in an odd while, and usually remove a good amount of negatives (and positives, sometimes). Trust wars make both sides look ridiculous and makes them both even more steady with their ratings. No-one gets anywhere - if anything, we take steps backward.