Topic: VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position - page 11. (Read 55257 times)

OK Techy,

It's fitting you use wordplay to indicate non interest in mediation.

The first step is to stop the dishonesty.  You can say "I don't understand Vod's substantiation", or "I can't find your quote" but if you continue to lie and say I didn't back it up with facts, then nothing will be accomplished here.

There is no one within 4,000 feet of me, so if you decide you want to mediate, stop the word play, stop the false accusations, and give me a neutral name to mediate.

 

If you think I can provide any further explanation to answer your questions, if you would please, ask them one more time and I will attempt to fill in the gaps. One thing I think you have not really addressed though is the fact that Vod refuses to substantiate any of his claims against me with any kind of evidence. IMO that is more relevant than Theymos's opinion which may or may not have changed. Vod's inability to substantiate any of his claims pretty well demonstrates that the ratings have no basis and he left them as a form of a personal attack and not as a legitimate use of the trust system.

One other thing you might want to review is a recent exchange we had earlier in this thread:


You can see in an attempt to justify a new neutral rating he just left, he admits there is no victim for this particular incident, explaining this is why the rating was neutral. Yet a previous negative rating he left for the same incident still stands. He is contradicting himself and undermining his own justification for leaving the negative rating to justify the neutral rating. This demonstrates clearly based on his own words, that he knows a negative rating is not warranted, and he simply can't keep his story straight, because it is a fabrication.

I hope those points get attention... I think you were pretty complete in your explanation of what the situation was from your end; and given all other info; 

I think just those few points of unknown to me (use of red trust, and is theymos's old words/actions still applicable in todays date) should add completion to my analysis.

I get that you attempted to serve as a neutral 3rd party, and I tried to engage with you and answer your questions as much as possible. I do not feel as if Vod has been as forthcoming. It is not really mediation if only one side is engaging and being questioned.

one or two pages back.

two, maybe three key points to address I mentioned.... my uncertainties about certain facts or interpretations.  The rest of the analysis was not refuted by anyone, and I believe it is sound.


This would clear up most of it to this point;  and it would be a fresh slate to go by afterwards.

Right. My wordplay. That explains why you can never make any quotes to back up any of your frivolous claims.

Oh I would absolutely LOVE that Vod. Now who would you suggest that is neutral? Unfortunately I don't think anyone truly neutral wants to be within 4000 feet of you based on your irrational and vindictive behavior.

I'm crashing - been working all night on the new site.

Techy, if you are serious, think about a neutral third party who can mediate discussions.  I don't believe you are capable of having a conversation without wordplay.  :/

Great discussion as usual Vod.

Your wish we could discuss this logically was another lie - you want to play word games.

Lock this thread and stop antagonizing me for no reason, bozo.  

You just admitted there is no victim, which is why you said the rating was neutral. You just literally admitted there is no reason for it to be a negative rating to justify your neutral rating, but here you are justifying it anyway with your double speak.

I know you have trouble substantiating any of your claims Vod, but a reference is not a quote. Quote any lies I made. If it happened that shouldn't be hard should it? Of course it never happened, so quoting this supposed lie is quite impossible isn't it?

Have you asked for help yet?   Click on the Reference link!   ^^

How does my logic state I need to remove a red rating if I place a neutral one?

This thread is just pointless antagonism from you.

What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating.

Vod   2020-02-04   Reference   "Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. "

Then they don't deserve to be in the guild, because according to you, posting private messages is wrong.   You posted a private message without permission, and then you lied about it then, and just again now.  

There was no victim, and that is why the trust is neutral.

Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy.

The words you are taking out of context and completely mischaracterizing were in relation to an exchange of value with a user who was very clearly out of line. There is a difference between PMs of a casual manner, and ones between a buyer and a seller. Of course, you know all of this, but that doesn't stop you from struggling to find any excuse to use the trust system as your personal toy to serve as a tool of retribution.

Curious why you always post things that are "obvious".  

What is wrong now Techy?  I followed your example closely, minus the spelling error.  Trying to be part of the "guild".

If you claim (many times) that posting PMs without permission is untrustworthy, then you are untrustworthy.   /logic

But you agree with Vod's neutral feedback, take a look:
Your words...

According to you and points from random users in that thread, this topic should be locked, there is no trust abuse.

More pointless antagonism from Vod. Obviously retribution for demonstrating he is in fact a liar here. Also kind of pointless as he has already negative rated me for this, something the person most potentially effected by it doesn't care about to the point that they still include me in their trust list. Of course that doesn't stop Vod from scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately seeking excuses to abuse the trust system to serve his petty vendettas.

Vod   2020-02-23   Reference   ""...by posting my private messages multiple times without permission, I would say not trusting him with any personal information is perfectly reaonable."

Techy also posts private messages without permission and agrees that not trusting him with any personal information is reasonable. See Reference."

Barely able to go another week without getting his rocks off using this community as a toy to masturbate his ego, Vod is at it again, now resorting to attempting to openly extort users in to apologizing. I thought federal crimes were not allowed here. I guess it is like the rule on doxing, or any other rule around here. Zero tolerance, unless you are Vod, then you are free to violate the same rules over and over again because poor him hes just so sad and pathetic we have to let him continue abusing everyone.

Well that will never happen. The only action will be taken by people like you confronting Vod and demanding he substantiate his claims. He can play it off like I am just trying to cover my ass, he can't use the same strategy for uninvolved 3rd parties.

Until then for the most part no one is going to want to spend the time to dig through the heaps of bullshit that follow Vod everywhere he goes to get to the facts and will just call it a wash, and wash their hands of it. This of course leaving Vod free to abuse the trust system, exactly as he intended, and exactly as he has an extensive history of doing before. The only other solution is ~Vod

---

As usual, Vod runs away from any kind of critical discussion of his negative ratings. Since his pathetic attempt at trying to elicit sympathy to deflect from his abusive behavior back fired, he has to lock the thread to prevent anyone thinking too carefully about his actions or asking too many questions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225724.0;all

Another deflection and feigned new found moderation designed in a very manipulative way to deflect attention from his abuse of the trust system in the hopes that everyone will just let him keep his little obsessive vendetta trophy in the form of trust system abuse without repercussion. He does this while he pretends to be moderating his behavior AFTER he gets away with all the abuse of the trust system he wants with no compromise. How magnanimous of you.

Just add it to the list of the last few times he needs to suddenly find himself and "focus on other things" every time he gets called out for abuses that other users are harshly punished for, for a single incident of abuses he perpetuates regularly. He does this only to return a few weeks later to continue his previous pattern of behavior after attention on him has died down.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074434.0;all

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-im-taking-a-break-for-a-few-weeks-5144112

I would love to have a logical and critical discussion about your negative ratings left for me Vod. However you know very well your accusations will not withstand even the slightest scrutiny, as a result your only option is to deflect and topic slide, as you always do. This is demonstrated in this thread by page, after page, after page of your attempts to avoid even attempting to substantiate any of your abuses of the trust system against me in the past, as well documented here.

At least I narrowed it down to two key points that need to be addressed.....
The sooner admins (or whomever it may be) see it and can weigh on those points:  the sooner we can have an answer to if these flags are justified or just abusing status out of spite.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything really (stop or continue if you want, l have no control over that); but in actuality I am pointing at a path to completion of this mess because of the current rules and regulations we have in place now are most relevant;  not the ones from before as they were obviously different.