Topic: Redsn0w, negative/neutral/or no trust due to Escrow negligence? (Read 2726 times)

Though as a note, if redsn0w does start offering escrow again in the future, say after getting his negatives removed...then there's a problem. Unless a long, long period of time has passed.

Hi , I sent you the access data. I'm sorry again for my mistake, have a great day.



redsn0w

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10066106
loan has been repaid waiting for redsn0w now

Yes I've only "recovered" the account from the troll , he wrote the passwod in the signture after he has been banned. Thanks to BadBear to have unBanned (moreia's account)  after that situation.

Thing is, he didn't fix it. BadBear fixed it, not redsn0w. If it wasn't for the crew, redsn0w would have had a serious problem with, most likely, even bigger consequences.

Even though he isn't drowning in negative points they still hurt... I mean, when you see the trust under someone's name you get a little discouraged when you see any negative trust at all... I'm not sure redsnow deserves that for something he fixed.

My neutral is staying, but it's just that, a neutral. I don't disagree with the negatives, though. He isn't exactly drowning in negative trust points.

This is not an assumption, you have stated with your own words you do not have time to review these cases carefully. Furthermore I don't have to assume anything, in your case all I have to do is witness your hostile stance toward anyone who questions your decisions. It does in fact cause more harm than good, because a scammer is back in minutes, how long does it take an honest member trying to obey the rules to recover their reputation? It may never happen in a lot of people's cases. They just lose all of their time and effort invested. You guys are using hand grenades to swat flys and then claiming the pile of bodies left over from bystanders is not a big deal.


Isn't the entire concept of Bitcoin supposed to be focused around person to person trading? Furthermore your response just demonstrates your lack of respect for users here. Just because YOU think it is a good reason to intervene does not make anyone involved children, but I am sure it suits your authority complex well.



You have said you are done commenting on my posts about 3 times now, do you really mean it? I never wanted to leave a negative on Armis's reputation permanently, but you made sure that all paths to any form of restorative justice between us were replaced with with authoritarian centralized punishment. So I guess we both lose because of your obsessive need for control and punishment rather than focusing on how both parties could find resolution (which I offered to him publicly).

I don't ask him to remove the negative feedback , I think it was better a neutral one.  For me it is not problem , because I don't think that I deserve a negative feedback (at the end).


*I respect every opinion, as you see I'm not rude or arrogant ....

That sounds really wrong if you ask me. It shows disrespect towards Quickseller and his opinion. I wouldn't remove my rating if someone said something like that to me.

Hi , thanks for the fast response. Yes from BedBear , I hope when these 3 escrow services will finish he "may" remove his negative feedback. It would be very appreciated. The negative ones from Quickseller , I also hope he will "reason" well and at the end will make the right choice.

You sure seem to be making grand assumptions about how fatigued the staff are. I suspect you're projecting your frustration and fatigue with the community rather than the staff's viewpoint. It doesn't cause more harm, you just felt the force of it after doing something you thought you were entitled to. A completely neglected system would let anyone with minor or petty gripes get what they want, as in the attempt in your case.


But sometimes mummy and daddy need to get involved when children get out of hand and can't play nice.


That's what you hoped. And Amis might be still marked with negative but it's untrusted and people will now disregard it once they see who it's from.

Seriously I'm done with your whole fiasco. What do you actually attempt to get out of this? All you're doing is making yourself look bad and making people respect you less and less.


From who? I'm sure BadBear will remove it once your current escrows cease and you don't start a new service. Maybe Quickseller will remove or neutralise his over time.

Yes , I told  : I will not provide anymore my escrow service here in the community. I thought I could complete the 3 escrow services and obviously don't start  new ones (as it is right).  Now the negative feedback will be not never removed , or am I wrong ?

Why are they different? Because their job is to police the forum, and after some time that becomes frustrating and builds callousness and unwillingness to listen to people any longer because you simply don't have the time or energy to listen to anyone's complaints any longer. You take your shitty merciless forum policing attitude and apply it to a trust system as a third party with no direct involvement in the situation, and cause MORE HARM, instead of allowing the two parties to achieve a mutually beneficial solution to the issue.

The difference is most regular members don't have an obsessive compulsive need to get involved in disputes as a third party like staff and or staff protected users like VOD. If some one is out of line eventually the user base will push back WITHOUT mommy and daddy babysitting. In my case, if the staff hadn't got involved, Armis would have never been put under the impression that staff would "fix" the rating I left for him and he would have removed his harassing posts, and I would have removed my negative rating, restoring US BOTH to out previous states. Instead staff forced their involvement now I am removed from the default trust and Armis still is marked with negative trust. Wow you guys sure made that issue better.

ah I see. for a second there I thought that you agreed that third parties should leave negative feedback on redsn0w if they feel like it, yet telling them to stop doing the witch hunt when michaeladairm asked you.

the off-topic replies kinda threw me of the loop

Why are staff members any different from 'regular' users? They can have valid opinions on this too, but I'm sensing you just don't like staff and the power you think it gives them. There are always two viewpoints to feedback and I'm on the fence on this situation. Is negative justified? Yes. Is it harsh? Possibly. Should it stay? Depends on what redsnow is planning. Many people have concerns about his ability to escrow and that has now been voiced after his error. Yes, the error was unfortunate and relatively small but one that still almost cost someone money and likely would have had a big, bad staff member not stepped in to sort it.


This can apply to regular members too. In fact isn't this pretty much exactly what happend in your case as you got annoyed by someone you thought was troling/harassing you?

I don't think he deserves negative trust from third parties no. I think if the harmed user wanted to leave negative feedback that would be appropriate. IMO this need for the staff to some how perfect the trust system by obsessively policing it is the very reason it has become so destructive. Their job is to POLICE THE FORUM, not the trust.

If they try to also police the trust they also bring their baggage from dealing with scammers, trolls, and spammers all day and act callously with little regard for anyone involved, and with little thought, because by their own admission they don't have time to be doing this. Furthermore they have no interest in the matter either way, and this is a sure way to prevent any kind of restorative justice where only the two involved parties negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. Instead of restorative justice they just meter out punishments and move on leaving both parties worse off than when they started.

there's something I don't understand here. I'm trying to and I'll start by asking this: do you agree that badbear should remove his neg trust?

IMO, redsn0w did indeed fuck up, but he fixed the situation and the harmed party seems to be satisfied. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THAT MATTERS. Everyone else engaging in a witchunt against him IMO is out of line and needs to get a life.

You said we should have less fighting among trusted members. So you agree that Redsn0w shouldn't be begged, right?