STAFF/MODERATOR DOUBLE STANDARDS AND SELECTIVE ENFORCMENT OF RULES

[TECSHARE]

This is a response to a thread that is for admins only, so I am replying here.

Again, the trust system is not a definitive proof of trustworthiness, its just a feedback system. As far as standards, there aren't enforced standards by a central forum authority, there are enforced standards by the community,

If this was actually true why in my case did:
1: The administrator personally requested my removal from the default trust.

2: More than one staff member mobilized to rally people to see to my removal.

3: Two high ranking staff or mods excluded me from trust effectively negating the actual trust I earned, not the default trust position that was granted to me.

4: The staff repeatedly speak of responsibility and standards of users leaving trust while on the default trust list.

You can call it "community" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that staff were the ones doing all of the rallying for removal, and added their own punitive punishment of trust exclusions to boot on top of the default trust removal to make sure I was made an example of for not following dictates from staff to remove my rating. You can claim the staff are "just part of the community", but when they speak it holds great weight and people will likely do pretty much anything they suggest. So in reality it is not at all true that a central authority doesn't enforce trust standards, because clearly it does, and I am sure my case was not the only case handled in this manner.

[1714039102]

1714039102

[1714039102]

1714039102

[1714039102]

1714039102

[1714039102]

1714039102

[1714039102]

1714039102

[SaltySpitoon]

Entire post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917235.msg10072397#msg10072397

*edit* And piece of the OP from said thread

-snip-
All of my previous threads have been locked.
Frankly I don't want or care for community input.
I'd like answers from the staff.
If there is no standard for the trust system. I'd like to know this, so I can stop believing what it say's and others can be aware it holds no real backing.
If there are standard's, such as what it says when you click on negative. Than they should be enforced.

so I answered.

[TECSHARE]

Entire post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917235.msg10072397#msg10072397

*edit* And piece of the OP from said thread

-snip-
All of my previous threads have been locked.
Frankly I don't want or care for community input.
I'd like answers from the staff.
If there is no standard for the trust system. I'd like to know this, so I can stop believing what it say's and others can be aware it holds no real backing.
If there are standard's, such as what it says when you click on negative. Than they should be enforced.

so I answered.

I am not faulting you for answering, I am refuting your claim that the feedback system has no centralized forum authority enforcing trust standards. Clearly this is not true.

[DiamondCardz]

AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.

[TECSHARE]

AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.

I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).

[SaltySpitoon]

AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.

I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).

And I would refute your statement about my statement not being true, but honestly I don't especially care anymore. Any of the staff telling you there is no conspiracy going on behind the scenes to censor/modify trust isn't going to change your opinion, so why bother. I know your claim isn't valid, and you know my claim isn't valid, pretty sure there is no budging from here. It has been discussed to death, and no progress in either direction has been made.

 

[Vortex20000]

AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.

I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).

TECSHARE, this is like the third or fourth thread in Meta you've made desperately trying to do what, I don't know... Kill the staff? Remove the admin(s)? Get yourself back on DefaultTrust?

Or is it just that you're sore and want an apology?

The staff are human beings and are part of the community. They are not special in any way except that they've been trusted with the ability to delete posts and tempban. (Forgot which rank in the staff hierarchy can permaban and whether you can edit posts; it's of no consequence to me.) Furthermore, your trust eating is still pretty speckless. All that has happened to you is that you have simply been removed from the default trust list. Is that such a big issue?

Let's say, for debating purposes only, that the trust system is everything you say. Just leave.

[TECSHARE]

AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.

I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).

And I would refute your statement about my statement not being true, but honestly I don't especially care anymore. Any of the staff telling you there is no conspiracy going on behind the scenes to censor/modify trust isn't going to change your opinion, so why bother. I know your claim isn't valid, and you know my claim isn't valid, pretty sure there is no budging from here. It has been discussed to death, and no progress in either direction has been made.

 

That's kind of my point, that none of you really give a shit, until it is your personal problem. Also I love how you guys are all using this "conspiracy" buzzword to try to make it sound like I am claiming James Bond and Money Penny are there on the staff roles conspiring with alien reptoids to silence me. This is completely disingenous and just more slandering tactics.

The reality is there needs to be absolutely no collusion for you to carelessly deal with some one like me and enforce the most stringent standards with zero regard for me as a contributing member to this community while also just looking the other way when one of your pals is becoming extremely destructive to the same community. It is not conspiracy, just perfectly organic nepotism.

AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.

I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).

TECSHARE, this is like the third or fourth thread in Meta you've made desperately trying to do what, I don't know... Kill the staff? Remove the admin(s)? Get yourself back on DefaultTrust?

Or is it just that you're sore and want an apology?

The staff are human beings and are part of the community. They are not special in any way except that they've been trusted with the ability to delete posts and tempban. (Forgot which rank in the staff hierarchy can permaban and whether you can edit posts; it's of no consequence to me.) Furthermore, your trust eating is still pretty speckless. All that has happened to you is that you have simply been removed from the default trust list. Is that such a big issue?

Let's say, for debating purposes only, that the trust system is everything you say. Just leave.

Actually it is my second thread, but why bother counting when you can make numbers up. I don't give a shit about the default trust, in fact I would like to see it removed completely because it is a failed system. Yep, they are human beings. Unfortunately they have been demonstrating a pattern of disregard for the same rules they gladly enforce upon others at the drop of a hat. This is destructive to the entire community, not just me personally. The staff feel like they have done nothing wrong, but I disagree, and I am not the only reputable member who thinks so. The staff/mods DO have special power, they have the trust of the community. When they speak people listen, and follow their directives, often blindly just based on their word. If the staff/mods stop honoring their word and stop observing rule of law that they gladly enforce upon others, then they automatically reduce their authority regardless of what I do.

Removing me from the trust is not the issue, it is how and why they did it, and their unwillingness to hold others to the same standards when they are within their clique. Removing me from the default trust wasn't such a big deal, but they did more than that. They also punitively punished me by adding trust exclusions effectively negating ACTUAL TRUST I HAD EARNED, not something that was GRANTED to me like the default trust. I got to be the very first test use of this new addition of trust exclusions (shocking I know). Now because of this, even though I have 3 people on level 2 trust who put me on their trust lists, I am now marked as -2 excluded on the default trust, effectively making it impossible for me to ever recover my trust because they sit on top of that list. Regardless of how many people add me to their trust in the future, that will not change because no one can ever out rank them.

Because of this I will never have sufficient pull within the trust system to balance this punitive punishment for not obeying their dictates to modify my trust rating. Trust exclusions used by higher ranking members are a convenient new way for them to take quiet retribution upon users by destroying their hard earned reputations for not obeying their dictates, in my case for refusing to allow them to intimidate me into changing my trust rating after they had already removed me from the default trust.

I think they figured that once they removed me from the default trust, that the red rating I left for Armis would go away, but I have so many positive ratings from people from trading impeccably here for over 3 years, that even after they removed me from default trust, he was still left in the red. Because of this theymos decided to invent a new way to moderate the trust ratings quietly through the new back door of trust exclusions to make sure I couldn't "get away with it". Meanwhile they repeat to everyone that they don't moderate trust ratings, and they don't do so from a centralized position of authority either. This is a lie.

What is "trust eating" and "speckless"?

So... basically you are saying to me, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT WELL YOU CAN JUST GIT OUT!"

That's great, except... what about the 3 years I invested in building up my reputation in this community? I don't see any reason I should tolerate this, especially considering that if I leave I have nothing more to lose than if I stay anyway, except for a little effort used speaking up about this abuse, which I am happy to do regardless of their attempts to marginalize and intimidate me. In short, they saw to it that the only reason I didn't speak up against them before was removed, so maybe they shouldn't be so quick to burn honest users trying to operate legitimately on the forum. After all, I am a human too.

[iCEBREAKER]

Removing me from the default trust wasn't such a big deal, but they did more than that. They also punitively punished me by adding trust exclusions effectively negating ACTUAL TRUST I HAD EARNED, not something that was GRANTED to me like the default trust. I got to be the very first test use of this new addition of trust exclusions (shocking I know). Now because of this, even though I have 3 people on level 2 trust who put me on their trust lists, I am now marked as -2 excluded on the default trust, effectively making it impossible for me to ever recover my trust because they sit on top of that list, and regardless of how many people add me to their trust in the future.

You have been an asset to this forum and BTC in general, and this is how you get repaid?

That's all kinds of wrong and messed up.

[phantastisch]

What is this guy talking about , even with a depth of only 1 and only default trust , he got a 6: -0 / +(4). He is not red. With a depth of 4 this climbs even ten times higher.
Default Trust is not a right given to you by an amendment. With that said , why should I trust you if you make a big fuzz over a thing like this ?

[takagari]

What is this guy talking about , even with a depth of only 1 and only default trust , he got a 6: -0 / +(4). He is not red. With a depth of 4 this climbs even ten times higher.
Default Trust is not a right given to you by an amendment. With that said , why should I trust you if you make a big fuzz over a thing like this ?

Well please explain how to bring up an issue to the community?
Everyone's always flagged as hot headed or drama queens. But no real way to ask for answers,  without going public.
sending a message to an administrator never gets.you answers

[criptix]

What is this guy talking about , even with a depth of only 1 and only default trust , he got a 6: -0 / +(4). He is not red. With a depth of 4 this climbs even ten times higher.
Default Trust is not a right given to you by an amendment. With that said , why should I trust you if you make a big fuzz over a thing like this ?

Well please explain how to bring up an issue to the community?
Everyone's always flagged as hot headed or drama queens. But no real way to ask for answers,  without going public.
sending a message to an administrator never gets.you answers

come on takagari, you had like 6 open threads in the first page of meta basically about the same thing for 3-4 days...

[fonenumba]

What is this guy talking about , even with a depth of only 1 and only default trust , he got a 6: -0 / +(4). He is not red. With a depth of 4 this climbs even ten times higher.
Default Trust is not a right given to you by an amendment. With that said , why should I trust you if you make a big fuzz over a thing like this ?

Can we sticky this post? Especially the italicized part.

Is Armis even a friend of any of the staff/mods/admin I have never seen any of them in each others' threads.

[TECSHARE]

What is this guy talking about , even with a depth of only 1 and only default trust , he got a 6: -0 / +(4). He is not red. With a depth of 4 this climbs even ten times higher.
Default Trust is not a right given to you by an amendment. With that said , why should I trust you if you make a big fuzz over a thing like this ?

It is not my fault you didn't bother to read the thread. I never said NEGATIVE TRUST, I said TRUST EXCLUSION (2 times), which Theymos just invented, and it just so happens to negate the 3 people who trust me on the lower default trust tree, effectively negating trust I earned with my hard work as additional punitive punishment ON TOP OF removing me from the default trust list for not obeying his commands to remove my trust rating for Armis. I got to be the very first person to be excluded from the trust tree (yay me). Because they are so high in the trust rankings, I can never have the trust level I had before restored, and it will be permanently capped because no one will ever outrank Theymos and whoever else left the other exclusion for me, in the default trust tree.

As far as making "a big fuzz", complaints against staff are almost always ignored, they do not feel they need to enforce these same rules upon everyone, just for special people. If I wasn't making "a big fuzz" the staff would simply marginalize my statements and they would be lost in all the other crap that fills this forum. They have gone too far, and I refuse to sit by idly while they selectively enforce the rules against me while giving their buddies  pass after pass after pass for much worse abuse than they punished me severely for.

Is Armis even a friend of any of the staff/mods/admin I have never seen any of them in each others' threads.

No, Armis is not, but VOD is.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

[fonenumba]

Is Armis even a friend of any of the staff/mods/admin I have never seen any of them in each others' threads.

No, Armis is not, but VOD is.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

Why would they help out Armis by removing you from default trust list if they are not friends with him?

I think it boils down to the fact that there was a valid argument to have you removed - you were using your position for your own financial gain, while all the arguments to remove Vod are invalid

edit: I don't even  recall that many staff members even posting on the armis thread. IIRC it was actually Vod that said he was surprised that people were not more up in arms about you abusing your position and how he was cussed out when he got drunk and gave someone negative trust that he should not have.

[takagari]

What is this guy talking about , even with a depth of only 1 and only default trust , he got a 6: -0 / +(4). He is not red. With a depth of 4 this climbs even ten times higher.
Default Trust is not a right given to you by an amendment. With that said , why should I trust you if you make a big fuzz over a thing like this ?

Well please explain how to bring up an issue to the community?
Everyone's always flagged as hot headed or drama queens. But no real way to ask for answers,  without going public.
sending a message to an administrator never gets.you answers

come on takagari, you had like 6 open threads in the first page of meta basically about the same thing for 3-4 days...

3 open max actually.
than I locked them. Opened a 4th, had my posts deleted inside as I went off my own topic and was told by staff to open a new thread if I had a new topic to discuss.

So sorry, I was doing as I was told.
but I locked my old threads.
never had 6 open at one time.

Maybe if we got answers. .. threads wouldn't keep popping up.

[TECSHARE]

Is Armis even a friend of any of the staff/mods/admin I have never seen any of them in each others' threads.

No, Armis is not, but VOD is.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

Why would they help out Armis by removing you from default trust list if they are not friends with him?

I think it boils down to the fact that there was a valid argument to have you removed - you were using your position for your own financial gain, while all the arguments to remove Vod are invalid

edit: I don't even  recall that many staff members even posting on the armis thread. IIRC it was actually Vod that said he was surprised that people were not more up in arms about you abusing your position and how he was cussed out when he got drunk and gave someone negative trust that he should not have.

I never claimed staff was friends with Armis. The staff however are willing to enforce more stringent rules upon me because I am critical of some of their policies and actions and I refused to obey their dictates under a supposedly unmoderated trust system.

Armis was not pointing out a legitimate complaint, he was there to harass me. What gives him the right to call me selling a giftcard for its face value scamming? Furthermore, if he really was just there to point out something I did wrong why did he stick around to make insults? Why is he not required to post his accusations in the correct forum like meta or scam accusations? Why does the rule against trolling suddenly not apply when I am the one making the report?  I did not try to silence Armis, I simply wanted a single OP to be free from harassment of Armis.

In my case no one ever explained to me that default trust was moderated, so I was left to believe that I was free to leave feedback in any way I liked, and if the community found it abusive they could personally untrust me or neg rate me themselves. If some one had bothered to explain this to me I never would have left the rating. Also, I gave Armis an opportunity to get my negative rating for him removed if he would remove his slander from my marketplace op, but he refused. AT no point did he make any compromise when he was the one to initiate this conflict in the first place. I have never even traded with him, he was just looking to grief, and the staff gave him exactly what he wanted, in effect punishing me twice. Once by being harassed by Armis and no one doing anything about it, then a second time by being removed from the default trust and added to trust exclusions, basically nuking my earned trust.

I explained all of this before int his thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg9495269#msg9495269 , but I am sure you haven't read it because clearly you are here to defend VOD and his pattern of harassing and abusing members simply for criticizing his abusive behavior.

[BitcoinEXpress]

Wow is all I can say.

Hands down all I can say is Tecshare has clearly demonstrated the most severe pathology of being butt hurt than I ever encountered.

All of these threads and psychotic whining is for one thing and one thing only.

His ego cannot accept the fact he was removed from the trust and badly wants back in.

Techshare is massive butthurt.

Anyone else see that?


~BCX~

[Vod]

Wow is all I can say.

Hands down all I can say is Tecshare has clearly demonstrated the most severe pathology of being butt hurt than I ever encountered.

All of these threads and psychotic whining is for one thing and one thing only.

His ego cannot accept the fact he was removed from the trust and badly wants back in.

Techshare is massive butthurt.

Anyone else see that?

I think most of us do.  Personally, I'm tired of proving him wrong over and over, so now I ignore him and his lackies.  Thank you for being a bigger man than me and standing up against his abuse.  

You should be Legendary anytime soon!

[TECSHARE]

I think most of us do.  Personally, I'm tired of proving him wrong over and over, so now I ignore him and his lackies.  Thank you for being a bigger man than me and standing up against his abuse.  

You should be Legendary anytime soon!

You haven't proven anything except you are willing to lie to the faces of everyone in the community and damage the reputations of people who give you the authority granted by the default trust list. I don't want on the default trust list, I want to end it, but don't let facts stop you.