Topic: The Question of Vod and Depth 2 Trust List (Read 2521 times)

Yeah I've been here a long time but I've been thinking about just leaving the account and using throwaways or just going to Reddit and closing my escrow service. A troll just lit up my feedback anyway I spent years keeping perfect. I'm over it.

Of course Theymos doesn't moderate that unjust feedback, only when "trusted" people leave feedback for others. Funny, if he trusts them so much, I wonder, why does he have to resort to extortion using the default trust list in order to coerce people into following his dictates.  It seems like Theymos would rather have a revolving door system of new users to profit from rather than an actual long term community that actually builds real trust, not just ratings on a screen.

I really hate the trust system. I avoid many conflicts and calling out scammers so I don't get random negatives. It keeps me quiet vs exposing people.

Trust ratings?  TAT, the d00d who sold you NeoBee on the strength of his rep, has tremendous trust.  Not a single neg rep from a trusted member.
Cryptosyprus, AKA Danny, has a rating of -4 after running off with ur monyz, assuring you that Ukyo Jon is legit, & ruining Cyprus for BTC.

I have -8, for telling you not to fall for their scam

I love how when people talk about Vod and try to accuse him of stuff they're always people with negative trust or newbies that can't write English very well, Vod's only human as has been said and he does make mistakes. Yeah I think he can be aggressive but he has to my knowledge never gone out of his way to try and usurp this community or anything like that that I've seen some people do and no one can be 100% impartial, anyone who claims they are is probably the worst for that because they genuinely don't question their own actions.

He's a spokespuppet for a scamring.

I agree 100% with what you said here. The key in your statement is that from start to finish it is YOUR CHOICE, not some one else telling you what to do with your own ratings. I agree due diligence is important as as far as making sure there is good reason for the ratings, which is why I have left so few. I don't go around looking for people to negative. Everyone I left a rating for had some kind of interaction with me, usually trade related.

When I left the negative for Armis I expected he would delete his posts and stop harassing me and I could simply delete it and we could both be restored to our former states and go our own ways. As you said if the person can demonstrate a willingness to change their behavior it can always be reconsidered. This was exactly my thinking, yet never at any point did Armis admit to any wrongdoing, let alone back down his trolling, insults, rhetoric, or slander. His unwillingness to take actions to restore us BOTH to our previous states by deleting his slanderous posts from several of my marketplace ops demonstrated to me he was unrepentant, and was under the impression that the moderators would some how "fix" his rating by making me look abusive as possible. Because of this he went as far as he possibly could to try to harm my reputation in a bid to make it look as if his rating was undeserved and unprovoked.

 The moderators then emboldened him in this logic by attacking me for my actions, so in his mind he had no reason to compromise because he was going to get what he wanted anyway. Now he is stuck with a permanent negative rating and I was removed from the default trust list as a result rather than him having the rating removed and me having my marketplace OPs free of his slander and trolling. This is what happens when uninterested 3rd parties get involved in moderating trust ratings. Even EBAY doesn't touch feedback ratings, and they are one of the most corrupt companies on the planet. They don't do this because they understand what a mistake it is to try to moderate feedback as a 3rd party. So rather than a logical moderated action on my part to limit the actions of trolls in my marketplace OPs, this was then cast as some kind of abuse of authority for using my trust ratings as leverage against him (even though lots of people on the default trust use it this way, including VOD).

IMHO I think that members of the Default Trust and Depth 2 Trust should be extra diligent about handing out negative ratings. I also feel that the ratings should never be set in stone and are subject to reevaluation if the subject has demonstrated that he has changed. That's why I'm always willing to take a second look at a rating that I've given out and see if it's still applicable. If not, it gets removed, simple as that.

So again I ask IF HE WAS NOT TROLLING, what were the INSULTS FOR? Your entire premise is he was just "pointing something out" and I left him a negative for no reason. Now that I have demonstrated this is not true you are accusing me of over reacting for defending my ability to trade in the ONLY AREA I am allowed to.



Again you are fantasizing about events that haven't happened and just claiming you know what I would do. Armis had an opportunity to walk away after he posted.  Armis had an opportunity to walk away after I made it clear he was not welcome. Armis had an opportunity to repair his reputation by removing his slanderous and trolling posts from multiple sales thread he posted on for no other reason than to harass me. He took none of these options and instead opted to escalate at every step and manipulated staff into doing his trolling for him, and you guys sucked it down because it makes you look like you are some how the champion of "the little man". 

I on the other hand:
-reported the posts (and was ignored)
-made it clear to the user his posts were unwelcome
-admitted the trust value was wrong and corrected it
-gave Armis an opportunity to repair his reputation by removing the damage he had done to me

I took several steps to mitigate this issue before leaving negative trust, and after it was left he had options to repair it until he escalated EVEN FURTHER.


An ultimatum was given to some one on the trust list. Remove me or they will be removed themselves. This is a dictate, not a trust system. You are correct you don't know all the details because things like this always happen behind closed doors around here. When you "ask someone to reconsider" "or else we will..." that is a form of coercion to force me to remove a trust rating I KNOW to be justified, even if no one else knows or cares. That is the WHOLE POINT of the trust system, so staff/mods don't get involved in disputes.... yet here you are.


The problem is I did not instigate this, and removing me from the default trust is just insult to injury for doing nothing more than protecting my ability to trade here in the only area I am allowed. Armis however is free to criticize me on the entire forum, yet me expecting a single thread free of his harassment is too much I guess. As far as me leaving negative feedback on a whim, any one can look at my left ratings and see that is not true. I do not leave negative feedback flippantly.  I have left 6 total negative trust ratings since the rating system existed.

Two are for the same user, and one is for Armis. That leaves 4 other instances where I thought negative trust was appropriate. I do not treat the trust system like a toy. Users like VOD however do, spending their days pretending to be Sherlock Holmes and leaving negative trust on a "hunch" or because someone annoyed them, or because they were drunk. This behavior is common here and not limited to VOD. These users have DOZENS OF NEGATIVE TRUST RATINGS given out like candy on a whim and remain on the default trust list, but your right my one so called unjustified use of a negative trust means I am out of control clearly!


It serves the rest of them because they get to pick and choose who gets to be on the default trust, not because users decided on their own to add or remove them, but because they were DICTATED TO REMOVE users. Mods and staff get to occupy their own little enclave where only the boys in the club get backup and everyone else is just useful fodder to feed to people complaining about abuse, while ACTUAL serial abusers are allowed to continue their abusive behavior.

He didn't merely "say something I didn't like", he was there for trolling clearly, and it was directly effecting my ability to trade, but why should you care if he hurts my trade? Since when do the moderators dictate what the content of a trust rating should be for? I thought the trust was unmoderated. Oh right that's not true.





Actually it very much is the case that the trust list is one big boys club, and how I was dealt with is proof of it. Yet some people here make a part time job out of leaving negative feedback for the most flimsy of reasons and they are allowed to stay on the default trust. I EARNED my position on the default trust by trading honestly for YEARS. Additionally I was removed not because I was untrustworthy (the entire point of the trust system), but because staff DICTATED that I be removed under threat of removal of the trusting party. If he chose on his own to remove me that would be fine, but he didn't, he was directed to remove me "or else".

What you call abuse, I call a justified use. Supposedly the trust system is unmoderated, but here you are specifying the right and wrong kinds of trust based on your own interests and completely disregarding my own concerns. How was I supposed to be aware that the staff/mods operate like this if it is all done behind closed doors? I guess I should just know it because you know it, like via osmosis or something.

Huh. The discussion has taken a mighty sharp turn to the left. Or right.

Anyway, I guess this thread will probably die a slow death now (although, to be honest, I am surprised at the lack of outrage over allegation #1).
But Vod (since you're probably watching this), this thread should be a wake up call to you.

Exaggeration again. The only 'negative light' you've been cast in is not being trusted to be on default trust anymore and that was your own doing. I hardly think you've been the target of a smear campaign. And so what if someone insulted you? Deal with it, but this is obviously the problem here, you couldn't deal or handle it properly or be the bigger/better man so you just left negative feedback in an attempt to shut him up and get your way and it backfired. 


You didn't for the mistake of leaving the feedback, and you both escalated it at each point. You handled the situation pretty badly and it spiralled from there. And what do you expect people to do once their account has been tarnished and is marked as a scammer? You're complaining far more now and all that's happened to you is you were removed from the trust list. You would've done exactly the same if not worse in his situation. 


You were removed not because you're untrustworthy to trade with but because you now can't be trusted to be on the default list. And I haven't seen any evidence of this extortion or threats so I can't comment on it, but I'm sure this is exaggeration again. I'm sure all that happened was messages were exchanged about the abuse by you asking them to reconsider your position, though without knowing more details I can't comment on the level of coercion involved. 


If people have the sense to judge feedback for themselves then what's the problem here? Your feedback is still there and people can judge it. If people trust your judgement the feedback is still relevant and valid to them. People really only get treated like children when they act like one and this is how you've been acting from the start of this entire debacle. And regarding 'playing with buttons', I think the only reason you are complaining now is because you've had your negative feedback button removed yourself which you now can't 'play with' at your own whim.


Now you're the one using fantasy and bizarre logic to suit yourself. Can you tell me what benefit does the staff have for removing you from the list and how does it serve the interest of them? Absolutely nothing. You were removed for abusing the position and you're just playing the victim and inventing fantasy and conspiracy to suit your argument. The staff care about having people who can be trusted to use the system for what it was intended for, not people using it as a bargaining tool to get people to shut up when they merely say something they don't like regardless of how much of a trusted trader they may or may not be. The only person who abused their position here was you, but it's obvious you're never going to accept this. 


Lol, come on now. Maximum punishment? And no, it wasn't about defying staff. You left unjust feedback and were removed from the default trust not banned or had your reputation tarnished. See how you exaggerate at every single point and just make up wild conspiracy to suit your argument? You seem to think you've earned the power to abuse the system because you've been an honest trader here for years. It doesn't. The system would indeed be far more corrupt if it was just one big boys club that let the long-time members do what they want because they've apparently earned the right to do so, but thankfully that isn't the case. And once again, you were seemingly fine with the default trust right up until you were removed from it. 

In order for you to be "punished" you will have to have had suffered some kind of harsh or injurious treatment . Now I ask you how exactly were you harmed when you were removed from default trust? I would say that the effect on you is actually positive (as mentioned above) as you will no longer get harassed when you leave negative trust with someone because their profile will not be "red" as a result of your feedback. You still have the ability to get someone's profile to become "red" as all you will need to do is open a scam accusation that presents evidence of a potential scam against you or someone else.

You see that you have lost zero power as a result of your removal.

What you are doing now is harming your overall reputation (as hilarisandco said) because when something goes wrong on a trade with you (it eventually will) you are showing that you will not handle any kind of dispute professionally (as is happening in this situation)

"pointing out" something? You accuse me of exaggerating while EVERY LAST JUDGEMENT made against me from the staff is in the most negative and punitive light possible. If he was "just pointing out something", what were all the insults he included for? Also I took responsibility for the mistake I made, Armis however ESCALATED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY beginning from his first post thru my trust removal, and he never once admitted any of his part in it. Also the staff clearly did attempt to extort me into changing my trust by threatening removal of the party that trusted me from the trust list himself if he did not comply. He didn't remove me because I was untrustworthy, he removed me because he was DIRECTED TO by the forum staff.

People have left me negatives before, and I haven't complained about it because people have enough sense to judge feedback for themselves. You insist on treating everyone like children you have some right to dictate to because you have buttons to play with. You can pretend you know what I would do all day to cast me in whatever light suits you, but it does not make it true. This is a nice way of using circular logic and fantasy to justify your stance as opposed to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

The default trust has ZERO INTEGRITY, not because of people "abusing" it, but because it is selectively moderated ONLY WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF STAFF, MODERATORS, AND THEIR BUDDIES. You guys handed me down a maximum punishment because I DEFIED YOU not because of the reason I left the trust. STAFF use the default trust as a form of EXTORTION over honest traders by threatening to remove something they did not create, THE HONEST TRADERS DID, over a period of YEARS. Because of this the default trust is nothing more than a sham designed to give staff complete control over all high level traders here by dangling years of their work in front of them and saying "obey or else".

If someone leaves a truly unjust rating on you, you have the opportunity to post incident and if others view it as abuse they can negative trust the abuser. This is really the only method of policing the trust system. The system isn't perfect but it's decent for checking for trolls and obvious scammers.

When you use words like 'harass' and 'extort' etc I think you're grossly exaggerating. It all boils down to someone daring to point out something you didn't like and it escalated from there. You could've just ignored it or dealt with it better and you wouldn't be in this situation now. You were seemingly fine with the defaulttrust and quite clearly loved being on it and the power it gave you so you were one of the 'buddies' of the 'boys club' until you were removed from it for abusing it, now you do what everyone else does and weeps and whines about abuse and conspiracies and how it has failed you. If someone on the default trust abused it against you and left you negative feedback you'd be here crying the loudest of them all for it or they to be removed because that certainly would have damaged your reputation. At the moment the only thing that is damaging your trading reputation is yourself. If the system is as broken as you say it is then you shouldn't really be bothered by being removed from it. If it didn't have integrity you would still be on it. Abusers are removed therefore it has integrity, but you're just annoyed that you can't influence it any more and the power has been taken away from you. The system isn't perfect but it worked in this case and if someone had done the same thing to you and had been removed then you'd likely be here championing it instead.  

I am loving the self reassurance of the boys club here. Like I said the rules are for everyone else, not the mods and buddy's of mods and staff.


I admitted my mistake, it was placing a value in my trust, and I admitted to this and corrected it, but that wasn't enough. You however judged it was appropriate to attempt to coerce me into removing my left trust for harassment that was HONEST AND WELL DESERVED. You were wrong. Standing up for yourself when you are wronged is not the same as being stubborn, its called HAVING SELF RESPECT in the face of harassment, threats, and extortion. Here at Bitcointalk some users are more equal than others. Its just a matter of selectively interpreting unwritten rules and harassing people until they submit, and Bitcointalk staff are the best at this.

I was told action wasn't taken against VOD because he didn't have any "valid complaints" against him. What is this thread I am posting in? There are several other complaints against VOD as well. Now who decides what a valid complaint is, the people who put him on the trust list to begin with and that make excuses for his "abuse"? VOD clearly does "abuse" the trust system, and does so regularly and unrepentantly (according to your definition of abuse). I however after one single infraction over 3 years am removed because I refused to bow to your dictates and your coercion of people who trusted me, to have me removed from the default trust, under threat of removal themselves. You turn the event into a giant shaming shitshow over a single DESERVED feedback while you yourselves use the ENTIRE SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel to extort people into doing what YOU DECIDE. You cant get any more hypocritical than that. All to supposedly protect the so called integrity of the default trust that doesn't actually exist because it is at the mercy of a bunch of people who are only out to protect their own interests by manipulating it from a centralized position.


MODERATING TRUST IN ANY WAY IS A FAILED POLICY
How much more of this community will you people rip apart with your own hands before you realize this? The default trust list has no integrity, and your lashing out at honest traders is repugnant and counterproductive to the entire idea of a trust system for trading. You didn't earn my trust, I did. You had no right to take it from me because you didn't create it. IU put over three years of work into building my trust. Clearly your punishment does not fit the "crime" and is excessive and punitive in order to make an example out of those who do not obey and follow your self serving dictates.

Another major difference between Vod and the two other members who were removed from default trust is that Vod is much more active in calling out and neg repping scammers. Even if he makes a few mistakes the net effect is that the community is much safer as a result of him being on default trust. Yes this is somewhat hypocritical, but neither of the two people who lost their status as being on default trust lost any actual value or ability to trade (other then the fact that one of them probably had people seek to trade with them in small amounts in order to receive the positive feedback that was often left)

Also the two people removed from default trust gave their negative feedback because they were retaliating against someone making (arguably false) claims against their reputation, this has never been the case with Vod.

Plus it is possible to rebuild a person's reputation by successfully trading with others and if you get enough positive trades on your trust your "red" will turn neutral and eventually turn green if you get more trade reports.

You can always ask r3wt who has "screenshots and pm's from Vod too".



In the example I gave above, he did not remove his feedback. He made a new one after originally agreeing to remove it quid pro quo.

Aside from being vague, this really doesn't address the issue now, does it? Besides, it's obvious Vod hasn't learned from it, judging by last month's drunken episode (or was it this month?).

This is a very good point. Everyone is susceptible to being blinded by anger or other such influences that can cloud their judgement or cause them to make the wrong call, but I have so much more respect for people who are willing to compromise or admit their mistakes and try to rectify them the best they can because it's so much more harder to do, as opposed to just stubbornly refusing to change your mind out of pride or principal or see the error of their actions.

Everyone makes mistakes, that's part of being human. What's important is how you deal with it, and whether you learn anything from it. That's what defines what kind of person you are, and that's what really matters.