Topic: Trust system abuse / DT2 member Vod is provably dishonestly rating people - page 19. (Read 5847 times)

Any DT member who trusts Anduck can counter Vod's rating if they feel that this is too harsh.

Regarding the auction, I'm not sure why Vod cares about a misinterpretation of auction etiquette from years back, which Anduck has since said will not do again. Anduck has done several deals and has gained the trust of myself and many collectors. I'm not aware of Vod ever frequenting the collector subsection, so it is odd that he would leave this neg after 2 years. Take that opinion for what it's worth. It's too bad he has default trust, because this is a petty complaint at best against an asset and respected dev in the community (just google Anduck and bitcoin if you don't know his contributions).  The fact that one person can make a person's trust rating appear to be illegitimate at first glance is wrong, especially when you have so many positive comments from very respected people. 

Vod I don't know you, I am here only to vouch for Anduck but if you really want to be seen as a legitimate scam buster, stop going after core devs for petty issues years ago.

If I'm the bidder I don't see the difference. You can back out of the deal, why can't I? Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

You call it, and me, whatever you want. 

Now, any new information before I move on?

You gave me the strict option to either change my rating or be rated negatively. If that's not a threat, maybe you'd prefer to call it blackmailing?

A direct threat is "I will kill you". 

You can read what you want into my statements.  I think you have already proven yourself to be incredibly dense.

Your private message to me:


This is direct threat. "Do that or I do this" -threat. Your message means the following: "You have to change your rating to neutral or I will negatively rate you". Do you agree? If not, where am I failing here?
You gave me permission to publish that private message.

He has not answered AFAIK. Give me links to the replies if you feel you're right.

Again, see the difference between a running auction and ended auction.

I would see that as a threat too.  Luckily I never told you that.  



Not enough to post from your main account though....  

Feel free to tell me how I am wrong in anything in that summary. In any case, you can read the raw sources (available in that same thread) and end up in the same or similar conclusions. The statements are what they are. If Vod tells me that he will negatively rate me if I don't do what he says, that was changing my rating, I see that as a threat. That for instance. Someone could come and argue that it's "gentle proposition" or whatever bullshit. Please go argue in that thread as it's more on-topic there. You can then link your own summary and conclusions here. Do as you like, really.


Correct. In this case, scamming was not attempted either.


I want Vod to address my questions. I want Vod to realize what he's doing. I want all the people to realize what's going on in these forums. I want changes to the Default Trust system as it's encouraging heavy abuse/misuse and causes fear of speech as of now. Simple adjusting of the default trust system could make it a lot more fair and credible. Trust system is not a game. Yet it has formed into one. I want things to improve to make this forum better. And I want this thread to stay on topic. I also want people to read what has happened before commenting.

I think I've discussed self-bidding and auctions in general to a great length already. I can talk about it with you in another thread or in private. Maybe we can continue in that Reputation thread? What do you not know yet? What do you want?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.39447493

Hashed to death already. 

I don't trust you because you committed actions I find unethical.

Any new information?   

Vod has already replied at least a couple of times. It doesn't look like you'll get anything new out of him or change his mind.

So you're saying that it's not ok for the bidder to back out of the deal. But it's ok for the seller to back out of the deal (via shill/self bid). Sounds kinda lopsided. Is there any harm or loss for the seller if the bidder backs out?

I have read in depth the post where you outline the timeline of events. It is peppered with your own personal views on the statements, which are completely subjective, so I would hardly call it "undisputed".


A scam does not have to be successful for someone to be tagged as a scammer (e.g. alia)


And I'll go with what the law says - the practice is forbidden.


I can understand that you want to shoehorn this discussion back to the who-called-who a liar, who-threatened-who, etc. as you feel you have a stronger case there. It seems you accept that self-bidding is a shady practice, which is why you don't want to talk about it.

If you win an auction, you're obligated to pay what you bid unless auction rules state otherwise. Try to see the difference between events happening during the auction and after the auction. While auction is running, your bid may be outbid by anyone. Getting outbid is not unfair. When the auction ends, highest bid wins.

Reminding again: this discussion is off-topic in this thread. Let's give Vod some space to reply to the questions.

What would you say if the winning bidder in your auction refused to pay or paid less than the winning bid?

All "he-said-she-said" is public and verifiable. There's not very much of that. I even linked all of it to you. So go and make your own conclusions instead of being a lazy ass still commenting here about matters you've not learned about. Only reason for you to ignore all the PMs is when you want to avoid the truth. Vod clearly stated in there why he negatively rated me and it has nothing to do with that auction he's talking about in his rating. If you actually read the sources, you'll learn that the whole auction thing is only a tool Vod is using to justify his actions. His actual reasons to rate me, told by him in various contradictory statements, is in the sources. Read it before commenting more nonsense. Dogs flying may in your opinion be "dishonest act". Nobody was scammed, auction rules were followed, forum rules were followed. It's your opinion if you think that something is dishonest. As you can see in this thread, people have different opinions about that. It's not even up to opinion really: no scamming happened whatsoever -- Vod claims (in addition to rest of his lies) that scamming happened. How many times do I need to ask you to read the provable and undisputed sources, the timelines and events of what happened, before commenting nonsense again?

Given that Bitcointalk is hosted from the US, and the item in question was in the US, US law is far more relevant than whatever the customs in your country are.

This isn't off-topic - in fact it is the crux of the matter. Ignoring all the PMs, the he-said-she-said, trading neutrals and negatives and all the rest of it, you performed a dishonest act and were tagged for it. That's all that is relevant as far as I'm concerned.

Vod's belief is enough to post a negative feedback for you. Your belief is enough to post a negative feedback for Vod, which you have done. This is not a court of law, it's a community-driven/crowd-sourced/whatchamacallit trust system and Vod clearly does not trust you for a reason. I for one appreciate Vod's feedback as it tells me what kind of auction one can expect from you.

I don't follow the law of United States. I've asked theymos, the forum owner, about this, and he told me he doesn't see self-bidding as scammy at all. It's not against rules. However, as I've said multiple times, I haven't and won't be self-bidding since that *single auction that happened over two years ago*, because even though self-bidding is common in my country and culture, I understand the possible frustration and wasted time undisclosed hidden reserve price or in other words, self-bidding, can do.

This is off-topic anyway. Let's try to stay on topic.

No, but being against the law does.