Topic: Feedback Abuse - user VOD: Lies in reason for negative. (Read 1129 times)

I have been a party of 100's of BTC worth of trades over the past 1 and a half.

I don't claim to be doing God's work, nor do I claim to be God so the second part of your statement means nothing

Both them and Quickseller are just nothing more than trolls trying to get attention I think. I haven't seen either of them making any real transactions or charitable work of God.

Ignore them and they will go.

you don't even know what is respect, man.
i kept up with my -ve trust since i don't wanna setup another acount again.
i no longer deserve to have that negative trust now, it is just a ripoff.

Lol you deserve that red flag.. Keep it up Haha

I said that he was not offering secure collateral. That statement =! Saying that he is a scammer. However leaving negative trust = saying the person is a scammer or is someone who is attempting to scam.

As I mentioned plenty of times in that thread, there were ways that loan could have been structured that would protect the leader and would have helpe the OP buy what he wanted to buy.

Not only that but there are plenty of examples of lenders accepting steam accounts/games as collateral so regardless of what any stickies say, there is precedent for borrowers using the collateral the OP was offering so it is possible he saw those examples and acted accordingly.

I have been critical of Vod's ratings plenty of times, both privately and publicly. My statements here would be no different then if BadBear or blazr had left the negative ratings (although I would not be able to say that they have a history of leaving these kinds of inaccurate ratings, or that they claim to have some kind of moral authority over others because that is not true).

The sticky is there for a reason, so that it is visible to everyone, the fact that you completely ignored it = a plus point in favor of Vod's negative feedback.
I do not agree with this though, Vod should at least give a chance to newbies who may have forgotten to read the rules. Something like EquaMobi's "Warning and 10 mins time to lock the thread" should be enough for most members, and if the person still ignores this, then the negative should be given.
And @OP collateral is not something that you show to make the lender trust that you will repay him , it is something that the lender can sell in case you default, something like lending in the real world.This post explains what I'm trying to say:Negative feedback is based on personal opinion, the "No-collateral , No loan" is not a forum rule too, its something most people agree on , and by my estimate most lenders will agree that what you provided is not a valid collateral. Considering the fact that DefaultTrust(the people whose feedback is shown "Trusted" by default) is something really hard to get and that you only get if you're opinions are something the community as a whole might agree on, Vod's opinion is what community agrees on.

All in all, your claim is mostly invalid that his feedbacks are "Lies". Although he should think before acting, and give a warning to people who may not know of certain rules. Lastly, it depends on Vod whether he wants to remove the feedback on your account or if he still thinks that your offered collateral is not a valid one.
Another thing @QS , it would be appreciated if you provide a neutral view on this instead of attacking Vod just because he was against you in the "Escrowing for yourself" fiasco .
This is what you said before Vod appeared:

I think both party is wrong in some sense.
Before quoting my reply please carefully read and understand what i am trying to say

aregularnobody is wrong because he didnt read the rules of asking for loan request .
There are certain rules and regulations thats need to be followed in forum. Like a newbie asking for a loan is always suspicious because there already have been cases of scamming by newbies. In that case i think VOD was just trying to warn the lenders by putting up a negative feedback so that lenders can look the trust section which is always seen by lenders before giving a loan.

VOD is not wrong fully but he should have given a warning to aregularnobody but i think after looking into the matter he did gave you 30 days i.e 1 month in which  if you dont post something that seems to  be shady then he will get you  back neutral feedback.

There have been plenty of instances when collateral not listed on that thread has been used for successful loans without incident, including steam games/accounts which the OP was offering.

Just because the OP was not offering solid collateral for the loan does not mean that he was making a scam attempt. It only means that his 1st try at asking for a loan was not up to par as to something that would allow him to secure such loan. With minor changes to his loan request, he likely would have been able to make a solid loan request that would be beneficial to all parties involved.

To claim that the OP was asking for a loan without collateral is an outright lie

understandable.  However i offered more then a steam account.  I guess I should have made clear that on the ultima account a user could strip all items / house / gold / skills from the account and pass them to a 15 day free trial account or any other owned account.   Its very widely known in uo if somone steals your stuff you don't get it back you can recover the account itself but litterly everything down to the characters skills/stats can be stripped and put on any other account in the game.   Ultima Online unlike WoW  you dont get all your stuff back in some magical mailbox if you dont keep your account secure.    


Regardless of such i still offered collateral, He claimed I did not. The fact that its not what he personally considered valid doesn't matter.  I don't feel it warranted negative trust.  I did nothing other then offer what in some peoples opinions was valid collateral and his not. I know that some accept this collateral after viewing previous post in the loans section.

Negative Or Positive trust should be earned by action not suspicion.   Why should one be given negative trust for simply trying to do business.   Trust should be between 2 participating parties rather then some random bystander who feels the terms are risky and tags the person with a big red tag for everyone to see Simply because his post count isnt high enough and collateral offered was not valid by personal preference.

Maybe I have this all wrong but i generally think TRUST is earned by a history of not taking advantage when possible.    Furthermore people don't lose trust simply for asking,   but rather taking action to lose trust.

aRegularNobody, I'm sorry we couldn't have worked this out via PM, and that you chose instead to one of QuickSeller's hate campaign lackies.   

I do offer a 30 day second chance if you learn the rules, don't break them, and contribute positively to the community.  (I wish I could find that link - does anybody have it?)

Your story aside, you offered NOTHING that could be resold to recoup loses should you default on the loan.  You just put more effort into your attempt than a lot of others do.

I agree 100% with the OP, the negative trust from Vod is unwarranted. The OP tried in good faith to give collateral for his loan, and he seemed willing to attempt to work with a lender to come to a solution that would result in the lender being properly protected against default.

well, even he is the one who wrote it, most members here respect him and that post as that is the usual collateral that is being accepted here in the forum and some collaterals specially accounts on different site is quite easy to reset the password after being used as collateral so he made that to prevent possible scam and to protect lenders

This is what he linked me.... ( notice how he is the one who wrote it )
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6311902

i agree that you shouldn't get a negative feedback for being a newbie and asking a loan as you are offering a collateral, IMO if the collateral you offer is not valid for Vod then he should only post the link of what is considered a valid collateral here so you can know how the loan thing here works. lets hear what Vod will say here

So I started a Loan request for .5BTC & I understand that this place is filled with scammers & scumbags.  I also understand that my account being new makes my request even more suspect,  However I created a thread in the loans and offered what seemed to be fair collateral also showed proof of incoming deposit to coinbase to repay with.


so within 10 minutes of the post I get a Negative feedback that reads
"Newbie asking for loan without collateral." - Reference  ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1214617.new#new)

Now if you clicked the link you would see that I offered multiple forms of collateral and showed a screenshot that shows my incoming Coinbase deposit that shows a History of buying BTC with the same bank account used for this transaction & at the bottom shows a payment sent repaying a BtcLend loan.  When I responded in the thread that that was Undeserved negative feedback this character Links me to the loan rules thread that he is NOT THE OP of where he replied with a random post of his own that he describes what is in his opinion valid and Invalid forms of collateral.  As if because he replied in the rules thread he makes the rules.

Honestly,  This guy doesn't deserve the right to give feedback..... Its understandable that people are cautious when dealing with new BTCtalk accounts but  giving negative feedback for & lieing about the reason completely screws the integrity of the trust system.   Please revoke this assholes right to post feedback.  After a small chat with another user in my thread its clear this guy has a history of abusing the trust button with others.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/vod-30747   (his profile)