Topic: Marketplace trust - page 4. (Read 83249 times)

I think EcuaMobi should be acknowledged for sticking up for OgNasty when it is clear to anyone paying attention that he does not like him.

I think Vod should take the loss, and remove the counter rating for OgN -- it is not appropriate. I am not aware of anyone paying back a $400k loan, or paying out $400k in real money (not counting tokens whose value can trivially be revoked) out of escrow without there being any kind of dispute. OgNasty paid out an amount 10x this without any dispute that all money has been returned (arrangements have been made to return the various forks with sufficient value that will be returned in the near future).

If Vod is aware of OgNasty scamming, embezzling money, or doing something else that would reasonably make him a scammer, he should leave OgNasty a negative rating, and open a scam accusation. If Vod can present credible evidence that is not refuted that OgNasty is a scammer, I would gladly take Vods side. Based on my observations of OgNasty, including how he conducts business, I don't think he is a scammer, and would be surprised to see unrefuted evidence that he is a scammer.

---

I do think the trust system needs to be changed/upgraded (again). The current implementation is causing a lot of friction among many long standing forum members, and is harming the community. Perhaps something along the lines of what LBC uses could be implemented -- that is there are no trust scores, only comments, and comments can be filtered by positive, negative, neutral, and can be further filtered by those in your trust network. As an "early warning system" to warn against scammers, the "trade with extreme caution" warning could be displayed under certain circumstances that varies depending on if the person has existing, prior positive ratings. It should also be limited as to when someone should be able to leave a negative rating.

Nobody is harassing him or impersonating me. Vod is a shameful cowardly liar. A man without his word isn’t a man at all in my opinion.

I don't really fully trust either of them.

---

Theymos has been involved with Bitcoin long enough that those figures are likely to be true.

Trust ratings also are not moderated.

And yes, for better or worse (the former, all in all, IMHO), theymos has the final say over how this place is being run.

So you are free to discuss whatever you want , and I am obligated to join every discussion you want to start ? how convenient  


Without a doubt, your post was directed to me, and I am in charge of whether or not have it discussed, i chose not to, and there it is , FINISHED. (Deal with it)  

Good luck finding someone else who is willing to discuss the conspiracy theory with you specially with this attitude you got on you.

I would ask you to provide a single example, but we all know you are totally full of shit as usual and you will simply spend the whole time doing your little mentally ill clown dance to distract from that fact that you can't substantiate your claims. That scenario sounds familiar...

His other trick is to edit your quotes. 

And? Do you want a cookie? What is the point of even mentioning it? Do you really think I am going to let you dictate the topics I choose to discuss because you don't like it? This is a general thread about the trust system. Deal with it.

I did not say you are not allowed to discuss whatever you want, you are simply twisting my words here, you directed something to me, I could have simply ignored you but I was nice enough to tell you that I don't like this general rambling you are trying to bring into the middle of a very specific discussion.

I am sorry I didn't realize you were in charge of what I am allowed to discuss in a general thread about marketplace trust.


It seems pretty overtly clear Vod has a years long pattern of lying to justify his abusive behavior so, I am not sure why this is not part of your calculation here.

No, he is not lying.  I never said he contacted me personally, like he is claiming.   We all know he loves to twist words.  He knows exactly what he did. 

show some proof vod or apologise
screenshots and hand your account over to a trusted member to confirm



or vod lies confirmed
proof or lies



accuser bears burden of proofs

Every time Vod accuses OgNasty on the forum of harassing him on social media, OgNasty denies having done so. Either one of them is lying, or someone's having fun of impersonating OgNasty.

vod
apologise to og and the community for your recent tantrum episodes and we may forgive you if you end your retarded escapade now admitting your mistakes
but we will not forget


4 some thing it is to late but not loo late to end causing yourself further damages




even if u cant c yourself    the last grip u have left on the slippery slope you are slipping down is near expended

LOL.  Vod you are such a clown.

As promised, I changed my negative to neutral.  He has still red tagged me though, apparently through cherry picked encouragement from Theymos.

THREE LIES CORRUPT.  ^TM

vod acting foolishly with a bad excuse to neg og
way to destroy yourself voddie

Like I said, it's the same for me setting the risked amount to BTC50 or BTC0. I don't think that's important at all. And I doubt it would be an issue for Pamoldar or dbshck either.
When there's a small disagreement in trust, something that can be fixed with a couple of messages, then I think it's worth asking for cooperation. I don't need anyone's cooperation but I think that can help in this case. I did what I feel is right but I feel updating the risked amount to BTC0 would be exactly as much right.

I don't see him as ???. However if I'm not mistaken he would be shown like that if yours would be his first negative trust. I think you misread my previous post.

I wish you just explicitly answered the questions I posted.

---

I absolutely agree. He did what he had to do. A lot of us would have done the same thing, but not everyone.
However I don't think I'm getting dramatic about this. I'm just leaving positive trust on a forum. I'm not giving a medal or an award. I'm not even removing him from my distrust list as I still don't trust his judgment.
That particular action deserves positive trust. Feel free to leave negative trust to him if you think other actions of him deserve negative trust but TBH I find it absurd you think that specific action deserves negative trust just because the risked amount is not 0. Please just ask us to update the risked amount if that's the only issue you find about this.

I partially agree. I think he was very lucky getting that treasurer position. He got the money and the opportunity to prove he'd return $4 million. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve positive trust. Again, it's just positive trust on a forum.

I am not a big fan of discussing very general matters when there is a very specific subject to be discussed , theymos clearly stated this


Indeed, we all can.

First off, read the contract.  Everything you say is idiotic and ignorant.

Secondly, I didn't realize that acknowledging I was a treasurer was considered bragging everywhere.  It's called being transparent and the information was already posted publicly by theymos.  A shame you've turned into such a jealous lying insignificant little weasel.  When's the IRS update?

You can come to whatever conclusion you want...  and no one else has expressed any concern.   :/