Pages:
Author

Topic: Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules (Read 7021 times)

legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
I don't mean to say "TL;DR" but give me a break. You are such a whiner. Reading all of those posts made me want to stop reading this thread. Only reason I read it was because it was linked to OP's signature.

Get back to me after you have spent 3 years building a rep here then maybe your opinion will mean something to me. Otherwise you are just another disinterested asshole in the peanut gallery taking pot shots for your own entertainment.


He may be a newbie but he nailed you.

You are a trust rating abusing whiny bitch which is why you were removed from DT.


As always warm regards


~BCX~
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
I don't mean to say "TL;DR" but give me a break. You are such a whiner. Reading all of those posts made me want to stop reading this thread. Only reason I read it was because it was linked to OP's signature.

Get back to me after you have spent 3 years building a rep here then maybe your opinion will mean something to me. Otherwise you are just another disinterested asshole in the peanut gallery taking pot shots for your own entertainment.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 251
I don't mean to say "TL;DR" but give me a break. You are such a whiner. Reading all of those posts made me want to stop reading this thread. Only reason I read it was because it was linked to OP's signature.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Uh! I am sorry. Some conclusions can be wrong. You should investigate more before spreading disinformation.

I don't even know how could this be a debatable topic where you concluded. I am hearing for first time making a debate on a matter after concluding it.


So you are telling me I am not allowed to form an opinion and state it without the approval of everyone on the default trust list? Just because you do not agree with my opinion does not make it a lie or "disinformation". Everyone loves free speech until some one says something that offends them personally then suddenly it needs limits. Leaving people negative trust from the default trust list for what some one said has NEVER been an acceptable use of the trust system.



2) You said staff is protecting Vod and even created a thread about staff's selective enforcement conspiracy things. How can we agree with this conclusion? How can theymos benefits from these conspiracies? Don't tell me it's money because he can earned more and there is no money involved in these feedback. Your words are false. Furthermore, how are staffs protecting Vod when he is in trust list of Tomatocage.
 I am hoping you are joking about SaltySpitoon. He is a Global Moderator. There is no "higher" staff than Global Moderator. He has more than "very little" power. SaltySpitoon is a neutral diplomat. I haven't seen him making a biased statement/opinion. Furthermore, it wasn't an opinion, it was a statement.
 "Matter of debate"? You said a false things without even discussing. Obviously, the post you made against staff is not in a "discussing" or "debating" style, it is made on your feelings and your conclusion. So whatever you conclude aren't false? You are spreading disinformation but I am wishing it to be a misinformation. Hope this wish can be fulfilled.

3) I looked meaning of "abusive" but it isn't fitting here. According to *your version* of abuse, aren't you being an abuser? You started this anti-Vod war when you were removed from default trust list. Till that day, staffs are ok & DefaultTrust is ok. From that day forth, DefaultTrust is bad.

There need not be some master conspiracy plot for this to happen, just plain old nepotism which happens everywhere every day. The word conspiracy is bandied about by people who disagree with me and wish to marginalize my valid points about the inconsistent application of rules regarding the default trust system, and the trust system in general.

So you get to decide if my statements are false or not? Tell me, on what evidence do you base this conclusion on? Oh that's right, its just your opinion. I guess you get to have an opinion, but my opinions have to be checked with you and Vod before I can have them.

Re: 3
If you are going to criticize me for something, at least bother to check the chain of events that started this instead of just demonstrating your ignorance of the situation as well as your bias.

This is the order of events you did not bother to actually look at, and instead blindly swallowing Vods bullshit narrative.

1. I was removed from the default trust list. There are no rules about using the trust list anywhere in the forum. I am not sure how I am supposed to know that the trust list is a broken system if there are no rules and the first time I break one I am removed. Additionally since there are no rules posted anywhere, all I have to go by is the example of other users on the default trust, such as Vod, and by that metric my rating seemed to be acceptable.

2. I made this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9495269
 In it I explain how the application of the rules are unwritten, unspoken, and not uniformly enforced. I used Vod's abusive ratings as an example of some one who repeatedly does the things I was accused of one time, but is not removed from the default trust. This is not a war on Vod, this is me being critical of his behavior as well as the inaction by staff while they played a close role in making sure I was removed from the trust list, even going so far as to create a new feature to make sure I was not again added to the default trust list by other level one users.

3. Vod did not like the fact that I was bringing attention to his abusive behavior and decided he would prove that he does not abuse his position on the default trust by leaving me a negative rating. I made a thread about it here, the first time I called for his removal from the default trust. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vod-should-be-removed-from-default-trust-for-systematic-abuse-of-his-position-915823
When confronted and asked to quote the supposed lie I made about him he waivers and delays for several pages, then decides on using a statement that I made in the thread about his negative rating that was made AFTER he left it.

4. After public pressure he changed the rating to a neutral, but after I dared to challenge his unilateral royal decree that MSDN keysellers are now not allowed to trade on the forum, he decided he would again use his position on the default trust in an attempt to again try to silence me from being critical of his actions. Here in a thread about the keysellers some one comments on his neutral rating for me and decides to make a show of the fact that he turned it into a negative. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890378
I don't know how he could make it any more clear he did this because I was critical of his actions, not for "lying" about him.



Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying?


You can if you aren't telling a lie. Partial yes. It is still not allowed.

BS comes from everyones' mouth. It is clear is about you. Feedback you left and feedback Vod left starts from same end but reach at different place. There is slight difference in them.

"people who have built up reputations" is also you. Nobody silenced you for good things you did. You still can. Sadly, you are still going for makeup conspiracy theories. Bitcointalk is centralized and hence, trust system. This centralized power doesn't give Vod special status.

Just because you do not agree with my statements does not make me a liar. It is a pretty basic concept. You don't have to agree with me, but you don't just get to declare me a liar because you don't like or agree with what I said. Additionally this forum is supposedly in support of free speech, but I guess it only counts as long as you don't get Vods panties in a twist.

"People who built up reputations" is a lot of people on this forum, and most of them will not speak up for fear of having their reputations assaulted by asshats like Vod who freak out and abuse their privileged positions to punish people for saying things they don't like.  Actually "users who done once" as you put it was referring to Beastlymac, who was removed from the default trust for negative marking some one who was trying to extort him for posting lies about him.  Its not ok for Beastlymac in a clearly justified situation, but it is ok for Vod. Vods position on the default trust list, that is by definition special status. He has the ability to damage peoples reputations by simply leaving one negative trust rating being on the default trust list. I keep hearing about these extra standards that people on the default trust list should have, yet people like Vod who have demonstrated they are repeatedly willing to abuse the position are allowed to stay on it.


"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

This isn't upsetting Vod, you are telling a lie about whole staffs which is bad for whole forum.


Tell me, what proof do you have that what I said is a lie? Oh yeah, that's right, its YOUR OPINION. The fact that your opinion is in opposition to mine does not make me a liar, it just makes you dishonest for trying to apply that label because you don't like what I have to say. Furthermore, please tell me exactly how one person stating their opinion is going to harm the staff or the forum. I will wait.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

OP

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.

Look how cute you are crafting so many excuses for your pal.

We aren't pals. I barely know him in this forum. Whoever agrees with Vod is his pal! Interesting...

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

Uh! I am sorry. Some conclusions can be wrong. You should investigate more before spreading disinformation.

I don't even know how could this be a debatable topic where you concluded. I am hearing for first time making a debate on a matter after concluding it.

It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890378

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "because you continued"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

Don't want to copy-paste same thing here, so quoting.

2) Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. SaltySpitoon is not the god of Bitcointalk. He does not speak for everyone even if he had the ability to know everything. His opinion does not negate my opinion and magically some how make it a lie. Furthermore Saltyspitoon is just a mod, he has very little power to do anything on the forum, so he can hardly speak for higher level staff either. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

3) It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890378

2) You said staff is protecting Vod and even created a thread about staff's selective enforcement conspiracy things. How can we agree with this conclusion? How can theymos benefits from these conspiracies? Don't tell me it's money because he can earned more and there is no money involved in these feedback. Your words are false. Furthermore, how are staffs protecting Vod when he is in trust list of Tomatocage.
 I am hoping you are joking about SaltySpitoon. He is a Global Moderator. There is no "higher" staff than Global Moderator. He has more than "very little" power. SaltySpitoon is a neutral diplomat. I haven't seen him making a biased statement/opinion. Furthermore, it wasn't an opinion, it was a statement.
 "Matter of debate"? You said a false things without even discussing. Obviously, the post you made against staff is not in a "discussing" or "debating" style, it is made on your feelings and your conclusion. So whatever you conclude aren't false? You are spreading disinformation but I am wishing it to be a misinformation. Hope this wish can be fulfilled.

3) I looked meaning of "abusive" but it isn't fitting here. According to *your version* of abuse, aren't you being an abuser? You started this anti-Vod war when you were removed from default trust list. Till that day, staffs are ok & DefaultTrust is ok. From that day forth, DefaultTrust is bad.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying?

You can if you aren't telling a lie. Partial yes. It is still not allowed.

Edit: TECSHARE has made some changes. So replying.

-snip-

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

BS comes from everyones' mouth. It is clear "users who done once" is about you. Feedback you left and feedback Vod left starts from same end but reach at different place. There is slight difference in them.

"people who have built up reputations" is also you. Nobody silenced you for good things you did. You still can. Sadly, you are still going for makeup conspiracy theories. Bitcointalk is centralized and hence, trust system. This centralized power doesn't give Vod special status.

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

This isn't upsetting Vod, you are telling a lie about whole staffs which is bad for whole forum.

Quote from: TECSHARE's Trust Summary
Vod | 2015-03-26 | Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

OP

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.

Look how cute you are crafting so many excuses for your pal.

7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890378

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "because you continued"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.

legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
Can we not move on from this childish bickering?
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
I ain't an anti-TECSHARE person. I am only telling what I understood/saw.

-snip-

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference 
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference 
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000     
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference 
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Decksperiment -4: -1 / +0(0)   2015-03-20  0.00000000   Reference   Severe mental issues. Read his past posts and his feedback (sent and received) and be VERY careful.


TECSHARE 92: -0 / +41(41)   2015-03-26  0.00000000   Reference   Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

1,2,3,4,5 & 6: Ok.
7: I agree with what he mentioned but a neutral might be better. However, considering he has changed to neutral earlier and it was reverted because you continued, I think negative is ok.

There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

Takagari's was changed to neutral at the same yours waa changed too.
iCEBREAKER's was removed after he understood it wasn't hacked. A neutral was best.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

If you have followed recent Microsoft threads, you can see almost all of them turned into liars and scammers. I don't think a liar can be trusted. Of course, he left negative feedback on MS key sellers because of his softcorner towards MS but what he said is true.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.

If he is what you said, he would have been removed from trust list or will be removed soon.

IMHO I don't think he is, so I think he will stay.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Tomatocage has contacted me about my trust, and I've listened.  Tecshare will claim this is my fifth or tenth or fiftieth chance, but the point is I believe TC and I've made adjustments.  I told him I would rather stop posting all together rather than let those hundreds of scammers loose onto the forum again.

(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Lets build a list of negative ratings Vod left for people that are unrelated to scamming. I am going to skip over the ratings he left based on his mere suspicion because it would probably max out my posting limit:

evershawn -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-07-25   0.00000000   Reference 
"Lies constantly, twists words, deletes information, hijacks threads, posts I bought my trust, posts I have multiple accounts. The list just goes on with this guy. In the one week I have know him, he has proven himself to be very dishonest. I recommend not doing any business with this person, as I do not trust him at all."


milkyway -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-08-25   0.00000000   Reference   Spamming


BADecker -8: -2 / +0(0)   2014-10-21   0.00000000   Reference 
"Mentally unstable - changes stories and views on a whim. Posts that I have the devil inside me (and should not be trusted). For this and his lack or morals makes me believe he would not honour any agreement. I do not trust this person."


jers -4: -1 / +0(0)   2014-10-27   0.00000000     
"Threatened me via PM to have my account deleted if I didn't remove negative trust from his scam pump and dump coin."


hilariousandco-rapped -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-11-05   0.00000000   Reference 
"Making up stories to get attention. ;("


Decksperiment -4: -1 / +0(0)   2015-03-20  0.00000000   Reference   Severe mental issues. Read his past posts and his feedback (sent and received) and be VERY careful.


TECSHARE 92: -0 / +41(41)   2015-03-26  0.00000000   Reference   Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.


There are also a plethora of other instances where he attempted to silence others for speaking out against him by leaving negative ratings that he was later forced to remove under public pressure such as iCEBREAKER and Takagari, each time claiming to have learned his lesson and seeing the error in his ways only to do it again about a month later to some one else.

In addition to this, he has now unilaterally decided he has to power to negative rate anyone selling microsoft keys because he claims they are all illegal and stolen (some how he knows this for every user as if by magic) . The forum rules state that if a transaction is legal in the country of origin as well as the trading partner's country IT IS ALLOWED ON THE FORUM. If it was illegal THE ADMINS/MOD WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.

This is just another power grab by Vod, giving himself more self proclaimed authority to dictate to this entire forum to do things his way OR ELSE. Vod is the kind of obsessive compulsive, control hungry, vindictive, egotistical, sociopath that should NEVER be in any position of power, because no matter what authority he has he will abuse it to feed his deficient feelings of self worth, and will lash out at anyone who hurts his feelies.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.


You left a false feedback. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all

If you leave a feedback which says "he is on my thread". It will be okay but you can't put a negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.. AFAIK neutral feedback wasn't there at that time, so it is better not to leave any negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.

Vod put negative feedback in your(& others) trust page for lying about him and maybe for other activities like "staff selwctive enforcement" and "irrelevant comments about trust system".

Quote
Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

Once again, I know how you all love making this about me over and over, but please resist your uncontrolled impulses to go off topic and use character assassinations as a method to avoid the topic at hand. It is funny how willing you are to chastise me for a single incident, yet when people like Vod repeatedly violate these same standards you willfully apply to me, suddenly the standards change and are no longer important or suddenly don't apply.

Ask Dogie about that... he would know about the inconsistency given his spam of my thread and no ban. I hear you brother keep fighting the good fight.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.


You left a false feedback. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all

If you leave a feedback which says "he is on my thread". It will be okay but you can't put a negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.. AFAIK neutral feedback wasn't there at that time, so it is better not to leave any negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.

Vod put negative feedback in your(& others) trust page for lying about him and maybe for other activities like "staff selwctive enforcement" and "irrelevant comments about trust system".

Quote
Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.

Once again, I know how you all love making this about me over and over, but please resist your uncontrolled impulses to go off topic and use character assassinations as a method to avoid the topic at hand. It is funny how willing you are to chastise me for a single incident, yet when people like Vod repeatedly violate these same standards you willfully apply to me, suddenly the standards change and are no longer important or suddenly don't apply.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1185
dogiecoin.com
(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

Yes the inconsistency in moderation is palatable in these forums.

Feel free to make your own. There is always room for another niche or non bitcoin centric discussion base.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

Yes the inconsistency in moderation is palatable in these forums.

hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.

You left a false feedback. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0;all

If you leave a feedback which says "he is on my thread". It will be okay but you can't put a negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.. AFAIK neutral feedback wasn't there at that time, so it is better not to leave any negative feedback unless he is lying about you in your thread.

Vod put negative feedback in your(& others) trust page for lying about him and maybe for other activities like "staff selwctive enforcement" and "irrelevant comments about trust system".

Quote
Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. I am not protected by forum staff. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
(Speaking of hypocrisy, Tecshare has left at least three people negative feedback based on feelings alone.  Why is he complaining if he feels others do it?)

Indeed. This specific complaint gets banded about a lot but its pretty contradictory.

Two of those people left me negative trust ratings first because they did not like things I said on the forum. The one I left for Armis was because he refused to stop harassing me via my market place postings, not because of my "feelings". Theymos took the opportunity to twist it into some violation of the unwritten unspoken code of being on the default trust, and a violation of free speech, that warranted removal from the list over that one incident.

Yet here Vod is doing this over and over and it is acceptable. He has done this to multiple people, some times multiple times. Every time he pretends he learned his lesson, kisses Tomatocages ass, and he lets him continue abusing the system and doing it all over again like it never happened a month or two later if not sooner.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Vod is a liar
It's funny when confronted with hard proof of the same, no action is taken and suddenly the topic is avoided and not responded to.

Guess enough said. So thick you could cut the hypocrisy with a butter knife. It's too bad that the idea of 'neutrality" and 'community run' is nothing more than a illusion to generate user base on a great idea. What is really boils down to is buddy/buddy and politics otherwise the other people that did the same and worse (like Vod) would be long removed from the default trust system by moderators.

Neutrality and community run only exists with it's convenient and aligned with the politics of the inner circle that run the site. Sad

Very sad indeed.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
Well, there's plenty of proof here in the forum.

There's even a thread that's calling me a scammer that Vod made back when he was really upset. Then when it goes it you can see him talking about his reasoning which has nothing to do with anything other than us arguing with each other.

He had also called me a pedophile and all kinds of other crap in the heat of his anger. Just search my user name you'll see all the stuff he did, far too much to list. He erased some of it later on when he realized how bad it made him look but a lot is immortalized in quotes as well.

Moral of the story is that you can see how much his emotions played a part in his trust abuse in my case, someone that never scammed anyone or even attempted to, suddenly labeled one simply because of one unstable default trust user that used it for nothing more than a personal vendetta tool to get at me out of sheer anger.

Totally understand not moderating the trust system but allowing default trust by people that abuse it (even if they do some good things with it like labeling obvious scammers with it), even if you abuse it once you shouldn't have it because you're not trust worthy to use something that powerful here.

Not saying he should have his trust moderated but he definately shouldn't be a defualt trust user. The guy goes around creating conflicts all day long with both honest members and scammers.

He even gave a guy negative trust for sticking up for me and then offered to give positive trust to someone if they would say things against me (proof of both here in the forum).

So he should be removed from the defaul trust list, his excuse for stay in that list is :

You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of

YOU for some reason feel it is appropriate to nuke my three years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally do not approve of.   Undecided


This is not a valid reason, he abused the trust system and if he will not be removed from that list as CYTM then all the trust system is a joke.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Vod is a liar
Well, there's plenty of proof here in the forum.

There's even a thread that's calling me a scammer that Vod made back when he was really upset. Then when it goes it you can see him talking about his reasoning which has nothing to do with anything other than us arguing with each other.

He had also called me a pedophile and all kinds of other crap in the heat of his anger. Just search my user name you'll see all the stuff he did, far too much to list. He erased some of it later on when he realized how bad it made him look but a lot is immortalized in quotes as well.

Moral of the story is that you can see how much his emotions played a part in his trust abuse in my case, someone that never scammed anyone or even attempted to, suddenly labeled one simply because of one unstable default trust user that used it for nothing more than a personal vendetta tool to get at me out of sheer anger.

Totally understand not moderating the trust system but allowing default trust by people that abuse it (even if they do some good things with it like labeling obvious scammers with it), even if you abuse it once you shouldn't have it because you're not trust worthy to use something that powerful here.

Not saying he should have his trust moderated but he definately shouldn't be a defualt trust user. The guy goes around creating conflicts all day long with both honest members and scammers.

He even gave a guy negative trust for sticking up for me and then offered to give positive trust to someone if they would say things against me (proof of both here in the forum).
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
So why isn't Vod removed from the default trust system then?

I'm a good example of abuse of that by him. We had an argument and he decided that he didn't like me and tried calling me a scammer because of it, even though I never scammed or even attempted to scam anyone. Eventually it was changed to what it is now so that it was not so obvious he was a liar, which is still abusive for someone with default trust. I complained to mods and all I ever got back was that it sucked but they don't get involved in the trust system.

I think they should get involved when it's someone with default trust who is abusing it. Yet Vod has abused it on many occasions for personal reasons or out of anger. Why isn't he removed?

I think if you can post some valid proofs he will be removed as CITM has been removed in the previous days, but I think you know that trust system isn't moderated.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Vod is a liar
So why isn't Vod removed from the default trust system then?

I'm a good example of abuse of that by him. We had an argument and he decided that he didn't like me and tried calling me a scammer because of it, even though I never scammed or even attempted to scam anyone. Eventually it was changed to what it is now so that it was not so obvious he was a liar, which is still abusive for someone with default trust. I complained to mods and all I ever got back was that it sucked but they don't get involved in the trust system.

I think they should get involved when it's someone with default trust who is abusing it. Yet Vod has abused it on many occasions for personal reasons or out of anger. Why isn't he removed?
Pages:
Jump to: