Topic: VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position - page 10. (Read 55257 times)

TBH, all I had seen is a snarky reply, rather than actual substantiation....  Everything in the current situation relying on a previous instance of the same thing, etc... but never black and white;  always a feeling or emotion attached.

and I am talking about a Red-trust acceptable type of substantiation.


No prob at all;  I am still trying to remain a neutral 3rd in my dealings like this....   things can backfire on the good intentions tenfold... but hey...   from what I saw, it was simple:  black and white as per the above sentence.

This is why I said before that I hope we could just amicably end this;  because TBH, from my analysis the only way to keep a neutral and fair uncertainty, I needed to throw my own conceptions into check/question to remain so.   But I thought by saying what I said, in a direct way, but allowing for people to correct me; would be enough to prove my point or give detail to those who read it;  but seeing things spiral for another page... well....  here I am again =)


I am a suuuuuper patient person; but in no way could I ever be a professional teacher.    If I have to repeat myself to someone like I do a kid who asks the same question right after you answer that exact question:  I loose my shit.    Good thing i'm not a teacher, and by my post history... it has taken quite a lot to make me drop my filter the 3-4 times I have on this site.


You seen like an alright dude from the conversations we have had in the past.

Speaking from a position of trust: many OG members have had excellent dealings with you in the past and present.  Being an escrow, buying, selling, etc....   upstanding.
^^^^^^^^^^^^  This is why I believe red trust has been abused.   This is exactly what its for (nobody corrected me, so I keep my original interpretations).

This just doesn't make sense for people to drag this type of childish shit on for YEARS. (i'm almost 40 if you want to add another aspect of context)

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I know no one wants to spend any time on these issues, and most who do are met with retaliation, meaning even less people want to get involved. I would like to see Vod try to substantiate any of his claims to a 3rd party as he seems to be unwilling to any time I ask him to, but I am not holding my breath. Thanks again for your efforts.

All the facts laid out being true:  I believe the red trust flag has been abused.


If this is untrue:
Correct me on how I am wrong;  I was very clear in my analysis; and my opinion will be re-evaluated.



I do see a lopsided fight.

I do see rules being broken.

*edit* this has been going on for so long, and its multi-faceted;  I am merely going off the single red trust I evaluated via my previous posts.  But this seems like a clear misuse of red trust.

I thought I already addressed this but I will try again. Theymos had excluded me in the past. Theymos no longer excludes me. Theymos currently excludes Vod. Theymos has made it clear he wants the users to be the ones to collectively decide who is on default trust, so it is not appropriate to just say "Well Theymos said" that one time, and it is forever scripture.

Even IF you want to take that position, it is worth noting, as I said Theymos currently excludes Vod, but does not exclude me. That is an explicit statement Theymos does not think Vod should be on the default trust, and at worst he is neutral on the position of me being on the default trust currently. Regardless of what Theymos thinks, it does not validate Vod's behavior or use of the trust system. Theymos has made it clear he does not want to be the sole arbiter of who is on the default trust, which is why he enabled voting on it. His vote counts just as much as anyone else's.

Vod brought this up as a distraction from having to address any of these issues himself. He is unable to substantiate any of the ratings he has left for me, when asked to, he just repeatedly claims he did already and refuses to quote it. I am kind of feeling like you are treating me guilty until proven innocent and expecting me to prove my innocence and not expecting Vod to prove any of his accusations. So far all of your questions have been focused at me, and I have done my best to respond to them while Vod avoids interacting with you completely. I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years. Why is it you feel Vod does not have to substantiate any of his claims against me exactly? This is starting to feel decidedly one sided.

That's the meat of it.

Its centered on how red trust was used and why.  I believe it is for obvious or proven scammers, faulty devs, etc....  people whom are a detriment to your security in transaction, or to be mislead in such a manner.... not to change a persons status based on a personal belief or something not in line with the aforementioned.

was red trust misused?   or did I mis interpret how its supposed to be used?  because;  if the concept of it being issued to continue theymos's removal from tecshare on DT is valid still;  then is it ok to misuse red trust in this instance?


is theymos' old word/action still law with todays vastly different system and rule set??

*edit* added formatting to quote and more description

I would love to say I don't understand it, but to do that I would need you to actually present your substantiation first. Please quote your substantiation Vod. If I am lying, prove me wrong, it is very easy to do. Just quote it.