Topic: Staff Hypocrisy and Selective Enforcement of Rules - page 2. (Read 6964 times)

That's nothing, dogie has been doing that since the dawn of time. Not only that, he asks his little band of followers to do the same, which is a clear abuse of the trust system. What's been done about that?

Nothing of course.

I've got a lot of your phishing ones covered now, although there are likely some I've missed. You can check which accounts are vulnerable because they'll only have -4 or -6 ratings which is from 1 person.



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


Will read the SS wall when its not 8am the night after.

(Sorry to take away from your wall of text with just one line quoted lol)

How many times do we have to post this?  Tecshare will still lie that I'm protected by admin.  We may need to accept the fact he just won't get it.  

Unlike you, SS, I do care if I stay on the default trust.  Not for the power to negative rate someone (I'm ok to give that up), but for the last three years I've legitimately left HUNDREDS of negative trust ratings on hundreds of scammers.  If I get removed, all that disappears into untrusted feedback.  Many accounts have been abandoned, but I'm sure many would come back given a legacy account and a clean slate to scam again.

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?)

30 minutes of writing results in a wall of text, read the TLDR if you would like, if you must skip anything, skip the first paragraph as the later sections are the solutions more than the reasoning.

TLDR: Theymos has no real motivation for running a corrupt trust system, much easier ways he could achieve any nefarious goals, people use the system wrong, new system needed acknowledged by all. Your best solution and the one that would make us all happiest would be to take some time and propose a new feasible system.

Vod gets his position on default trust from Tomatocage. Tomatocage is solely in charge of whether or not Vod stays on. Theymos could send Tomatocage a PM saying, hey I think Vod is getting out of line, and Tomatocage could say, hey get bent buddy, without any rammifications. Only if Tomatocage made very flawed judgement would Theymos consider removing Tomatocage from default trust depth 1. Staff make up less than half of default trust's 1st depth. It isn't shocking that staff/admins are on the default trust system, as if we had non neutral rational judgement, we wouldn't be staff in the first place. Others are people who have really proven themselves responsible to give accurate feedback. Tomatocage/OgNasty/Badbear/Myself/Theymos/etc are all on the same playing field, we are different branches of the 1st depth. Theymos has the ability to pick who goes on the first level of default trust, but his personal trustlist also carries the same weight as everyone else's. If Tomatocage/OgNasty/Dooglus all added you to their trust lists, it would override Theymos and Badbear's exclusion of you. Selective enforcement of the rules is impossible, since there are no rules, just accepted community made guidelines. Its like a handshake, there aren't rules to a handshake, but there are generally accepted practises. Don't leave people negatives for frivilous reasons, since people are relying more heavily on your feedback, don't spit in someone's hand when they offer to shake your hand. If you get 10 people representing members of default trust, and you spit in their hands during a handshake, some will be confused, some might walk away, some might punch you, they don't all act the same, but it is generally unacceptable to spit in their hand, so they will react how they see fit. If they pull a knife on you, thats an example of when Theymos would remove them from the default trust list. How someone reacts really comes down to the extension of reputation. If Vod acts unreasonably, it reflects poorly on Tomatocage, for that reason it is in Tomatocage's self interest to only keep Vod on if he is being more helpful than harmful. If Tomatocage doesn't respond and Vod goes unchecked, then Tomatocage looses his credibility, and if it reaches the point where Theymos' pick in Tomatocage is reflecting poorly on himself, thats when someone from the 1st depth of default trust would be removed, not as retaliation. Self interest is one of the best assurances that feedback means anything. Everyone operates as independantly as possible, hopefully the trust network can branch out enough to where it nears decentralization, and all disputes are handled between the 3rd/4th/5th depths, and the mandatory people up top aren't involved at all. That is if a better fix isn't made.

I don't know Theymos that well, but I know he isn't so petty that he would make any sort of action if people disagreed with him and all of default trust added you to their list and overrode his exclusion. I'm also quite sure that he would be thrilled to not be involved in default trust at all if a new system could be designed that would allow it. If he wanted to abuse people, there are far better ways he could have done it without the trust system. Theymos isn't active in the marketplace, and he doesn't run any services, why would he need to control the forum's trust? How is being in the center of the trust system benefiting him, and how much of his time is he wasting being involved? Why put in the effort if you have nothing to gain? You were around during the Scammer tag era, he was unhappy dealing with people's issues when he had absolute power. Then you were here when the idealistic trust system was developed, where people would make their own trust lists, and default trust would be just that, a list that was there until people customized there's to suit their needs. Honestly, who uses a default setting for anything long term? Was there any sort of manipulation there, or did people just latch on to default trust and refuse to make their own trust lists? Whenever I see people fighting against the trust system, they angrily say, Remove default trust! Make your own trust list! That'll show them right? Sure... yeah stick it to the man, help us use the trust system as designed. The man has better things to do than deal with petty squabbles over people's behavior, petty fights they get in, scam attempts, etc.

To be clear, I'm not shilling for the trust system, nor am I trying to maintain my position. I don't need to lick Theymos' boots, and I could honestly give a damn whether I stayed on or not. My proposals have been public for months, I'd be happy without a trust system at all, but that isn't a feasible solution either. If I didn't think the system as it was the best that anyone has thought of thus far, I'd be one of the first people to speak out for change. Your proposals for how to fix the issues with "Staff/Admin corruption and hypocrisy" aren't feasible any more than people who want to appoint moderators to the trust system. I dont think there is any staff/admin corruption going on, but if you can figure out a viable way to get the Staff/Admins out of the tangle in a responsible matter, I'm pretty sure thats what most would want, although I can't speak for everyone, but Theymos and myself for sure.

If you want to make a difference and further your cause at the same time, help to develop a new system that

1) Protects newbies
2) Helps to detect scams
3) Doesn't put any governing authority in place
4) Is resistant to trust spamming
5) Allows everyone to leave feedback for others
6) Is not moderated
7) all of the other features I can't think of off of the top of my head.

At this point, I don't especially care what you think is going on behind the scenes. Take a minute to think about who is involved in whatever corruption you percieve. Do they have motivation for it? Could it be more easily achieved in a less public way, or in a more effective way? What is it whoever involved in these scandals has to gain. Does Tomatocage owe Vod a life debt? Does Theymos have a secret business that he is using default trust to shill for? Who is the root of the problem, and why. If you stop and think rationally for a moment, and realize that no one has anything to gain here, perhaps you will realize that you aren't being singled out, your own actions are to blame. Each case is handled differently based on the individuals involved and the circumstances, and there isn't some elaborate scheme. If Theymos hated you, couldn't he have just found some bullshit excuse to ban you rather than just excluding you from a trust system? Would you be allowed to continue to post on a private forum about issues in its managment if it was true, and we were worried people would realize it? Think about the whole situation and whether it makes sense to you. Rationally, not while you are pissed off about something.

And a uniform.

So, your argument is trust moderation isn't moderated because it is done as done as an administrator instead of a moderator? Is that where Vod gets his powers, he just puts on a police hat?

That's quite a stretch. You'd then have to argue that making top level choices on these forums (such as subforums, hosting choices and site development) are a form of moderation. Obviously they're not, they're an extension of administrative duties separate from moderation.

What makes you think I seek to be on the trust list? You assume you know what I want but you are wrong. I have said repeatedly the default trust system needs to be removed. What I want is to be able to use the forum that I have contributed to for years without having rules enforced upon me that I am not also protected by. If I should be removed from the default trust for supposedly stifling free speech, why is it another user can then ACTUALLY repeatedly abuse that same system to try to intimidate me into stop talking about his abusive behavior without repercussion?

Theymos outwardly says the trust system is unmoderated, and yes has taken exceptional actions to have people removed from default trust solely for the sake of protecting "free speech", yet when some one like Vod leaves people negative trust for being critical of his actions over and over it magically goes unseen. Have you every asked yourself why there is no official forum rules posted ANYWHERE on the forum? Kind of hard to follow the rules if they aren't posted anywhere right? Unfortunately though when you make rules they apply to everybody, and then those with the authority to act would not be as free to do whatever they liked either. The trust system has turned into a protectionist system. Do as I say, not as I do. This is antithetical to the core concepts of Bitcoin.

Theymos has a right to do whatever he wants, but when he as an individual makes these choices about individual cases of a trust disputes, then he is in fact moderating trust regardless if he wants to be Theymos the individual or Theymos the admin. He is always both because his actions result in the same amount of force.

Might be the "end of the road". You are now saying "theymos is abusing the trust system" or am I interpreting it wrong?

theymos removed you because he didn't trust your "judgments" but he may still "trust" you. Both are different. He, like everyone else, has the right to moderate "his" trust list.


I still don't understand "how". Your received feedback still stay as trusted except a few which were left by users who "you" trusted but your trust rating is still high and is good. I couldn't understand "how your reputation-building was destroyed" and "how your words in signature is true".

However, I understand your feeling but doing this won't do any good to you other than making it worst. I request* you to stop this because your trust isn't destroyed and you are good to trade but your "judgment" needs improvement which causes delay on your return to trust list.

* Neither suggest nor recommend.

I see where you're confused now. Adding you to my trust list directly does not have the same effect that removing your exclusion would. Adding you to my trust list does make your trust score much higher because most of the people in your trust network (who have mostly left you positive feedback) would also be in my trust network. This would not be the case if your exclusion were removed. If your exclusion were removed, you would only be at depth 2 in default trust (adding you to my trust list directly would make you depth 0), people you add to your trust list would not be added to the trust network in the same way they would if someone were you to add you to their trust list directly.  

Believe what you want to believe though, but you're wasting your time.

The problem with your logic is twofold:

1. He, as you said is the ADMIN of the site. He claims the trust list is not moderated, yet he, as the admin, stepped in to damage my trust score as a result of a trust rating I left. I was removed from the default trust, why is it then also appropriate to exclude me from a centralized position of authority?
I take issue with his claims of not moderating the trust when he clearly went to exceptional lengths to do so in my case.

2. Yes, I could just leave, but then the 3 years I spent building a reputation here would be wasted now wouldn't they? This effort is used as a method to extort anyone who has spent time and money into building a reputation here. Everyone knows if they speak out, they risk having their hard work destroyed, therefore there is a constant state of chill effect against speaking out about abuses from the staff or their buddies like Vod. Anyone else who does not have a reputation that they can threaten to take away, they can simply cast as sock puppets or scammer, then declare the debate over. I just happen to have an exceptionally long and honest trading history, so they have more difficulty marginalizing me (hence the exclusion).

People shouldn't trust you by default.  You lie.  Maybe Theymos saw that?  I don't know.  

I am talking about the fact that most of the trust ratings I have already received have now been made invisible by anyone on the entire default trust tree UNLESS they explicitly add me to their trust list. If some one already trusts me, what good does it do to have my trust score show for them? They already know I can be trusted. So in effect from the perspective of the VAST MAJORITY of the users on this forum, my trust rating is at about at a quarter of its former visible score, in effect punishing me by taking trust ratings from me that I have already earned by preventing them from displaying in my visible trust score number.

Play with your trust list, try adding me to your trust list and removing me along with removing the default trust, or anyone on level 1 default trust. You will see the massive difference.

@TECSHARE,

Maybe theymos has removed you from his trust lost because he (didn't) doesn't trust you, I don't see any problem in that (he is the admin and he can do whatever he wants). If you don't like this forum, maybe you can always leave (I think no one obligate you to stay here, or am I wrong?).

An emoticon is not a reply. Nor is an emoticon a quote of this claim you are making about my statements. You swear over and over I did this yet you can never present it. I wonder why that is.




So now it is acceptable to leave negative trust ratings for your INTERPRETATION OF the meaning of my words? You interpreting unspoken words is not a lie. That is called you getting upset. Please learn the difference. This is not proof of anything except that you can not back up your allegations and are simply covering for your obvious abuse of the trust system.

The real question is, why did Theymos feel it was necessary to have me excluded even though I am already removed from the default trust list? Why is it necessary for these exclusions to cascade down the default trust tree instead of just removing me from Theymos's personal trust? If the trust is not moderated, then why is the ADMIN of the site punishing me with an exclusion for a trust rating as some one not on the default trust any longer? I understood not removing my rating for Armis would result in my removal from the default trust list, but I didn't care about that as much as I cared about the staff attempting to extort me into removing it with threats of removal, so I let them remove me.

Unhappy that I dared to have an opinion of my own Theymos then added a brand new feature just for me (I was the very first person that a trust exclusion was used on) so he could then moderate my trust ratings by neutralizing the trust I had already earned by making it invisible to anyone on the default trust tree. This seems a whole lot like trust moderation from my perspective. On the forum, Theymos is the admin, he is not just some guy like the rest of us some times when convenient, and the admin when appropriate. Even as just another user he still carries the authority of admin of the site. Why did he feel it was necessary to use all of this force against me personally over a SINGLE trust rating? This is not something he does often.




As far as my PGP key, it is already on MIT key servers, and in a thread in the Reputation subforum. I realize there are issues with it thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I paid for the right to leave my rating there for Armis with my removal from the default trust. Why should I remove it? I will never be put back on the default trust, and I gain nothing from removing it. Theymos clearly is willing to go to exceptional lengths to damage my trust reputation here, and any kind of compromise I present is rejected repeatedly. I stand by the rating I left, because it is true, and I used it in no different of a way than anyone else who uses the trust system here does, yet these rules only apply to me, not people like Vod.

Are you referring to your sent ratings or received ratings? Your sent trust ratings will have nothing to do with your trust score. You could never send any trust ratings but still have a high trust score because you receive a lot of positive trust ratings.

Can you explain what you believe the difference between being on the default trust list and having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree" are? I am fairly certain this is just two different ways of describing the same thing.

 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10043569
January 05, 2015, 03:20:48 AM

This is just one of dozens of examples of your lying.  If you are not encouraging Theymos to remove me from default trust, what are you doing?  Yep, you never uttered the exact words, but your meaning was clear.

You posted that just before I left you negative trust - so it's safe for you to view that post as the one that got you the trust.  

So there we go - I've proven that you were lying about me in an effort to remove me from default trust.  That's what my trust rating says.  What is your issue now?  

1. I do not dictate to BadBear what to do, Badbear does what Badbear wants. If you were removed from his trust list you should discuss that with him. You can not place responsibility for this at my feet. Even though you so vigorously and repeatedly claim those lies exist, you have lots of trouble quoting them. The two examples you have given are in fact hardly directly about you, and do not even mention you by name for that matter. Your reference also claimed that the lie you left your rating for was left as a result of a statement I made AFTER you left it! https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890256

2. I NEVER ONCE called for you to be removed from the default trust until you left me a negative rating, NOT ONCE. I challenge you to quote me on this previous to the opening of this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vod-should-be-removed-from-default-trust-for-systematic-abuse-of-his-position-915823
I was critical of your behavior, but this is not at all equivalent to calling from your removal from the default trust.

3. You are just trying to play tricky word games here to confuse the situation. You originally left me a negative trust on January 6th, in which you included exactly the same statement that is there now (only with no reference). The reference you most recently added, referenced a post made IN THIS THREAD made AFTER your original trust rating which is almost completely identical accusing me of lying. If you were just replacing your original rating, what was this lie before January 6th that I made that caused you to leave it in the first place?

First of all I am not the admin of this site, so your little refractory victim card doesn't really apply about "nuking 3 years of your trust". You are on the default trust, I am a regular nontrusted user. Under this system you have FAR MORE ability to damage my reputation, so please spare me the act about how I am victimizing you simply by being critical of your behavior.

You could just remove your negative rating for me, or be more careful of how you choose to leave negative ratings for people, but you refuse to do either of those things. You have choices. I have no other choice to resist your abuse but to make your abuse a matter of public discussion. Just because you do not like this does not make it a lie. Furthermore you haven't proven a single supposed lie I have made (as if that is a reason to leave negative ratings). Just because you repeatedly declare you have does not make it fact.

You are confusing being on the "default trust list" with having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree". These are two different things, and not having your ratings visible on the default trust tree is a serious repercussion, especially if you spent years building that trust.