Topic: VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position - page 17. (Read 55281 times)

What makes you think I give a shit about your approval? I posted here so there is a public record of Vod's pattern of abusive behavior.



No, of course not. He just happened to create trust list exclusions right after he personally went around asking people who had me on their trust list to exclude me. The fact that I was the very first person to have trust exclusions used against them was purely coincidence. The fact that he had people remove me THEN exclude me along with Badbear effectively punitively punishing me for not removing my rating after I was removed from the default trust even though he swears up and down trust ratings are not moderated for anyone not on the default trust has zero bearing on this either. This certainly is not an exceptional amount of effort from him to moderate trust ratings at all. After all, he does these sort of things all the time right?



Absolute 100% bullshit.



I am sure you are the person to lecture me about looking bad and losing people's trust  

Not really worth my time, but man, that's a lot of assumptions and third party information...

Are you religious by chance?

Yes you were removed from DT after ONE accusation of trust abuse that uncovered a long undeniable history of doing such.

Plain and simple you got caught.

No one here is going to believe that Badbear, Saltyspittoon and Hilariousandco dumped for you no reason.

What's next, you going to claim Theymos had it out for you?


Vod is still on the DT because he is trust worthy and benefits the community.

Why not you?

Think about it.


~BCX~

I believe there is a very good chance that it was Vod that dox'ed evershawn after evershawn attempted to call out Vod for what he believed to be an erroneous negative rating. Vod has admitted to leaving a negative rating on at least one occasion, that he removed only after he received confirmation that such account was sold, and that he did not have any personal issues with the new owner. Vod gave takagirl a negative rating even after Vod admitted that a negative rating was not appropriate because takeagirl was calling Vod out. Vod gave TF a negative rating only after TF was speaking out against Vod extensively -- even though I believe TF to be a scammer, I remember thinking that Vod's leaving of this trust rating to be perrty  at the time Vod left it.

I am not aware of any legit claims of someone being banned because they made an unpopular statement. Although there have been a couple of such claims -- I believe them to be frivolous though.

What I believe zeke is/was attempting to say is that posts by the moderators sometimes imply that the rules are written in stone and will not be changed under any circumstances, even after a discussion. I do think this is the way that a certain few moderators sometimes post about the rules. I do generally find theymos and others who have the authority to change the rules to be reasonable, and will often listen to arguments based on facts and ethos, which sometimes results in rules being adjusted.

I don't think this is true. Regardless to the truth of this, I believe that you saying this is going to make you look bad and might make some people want to trust you less.

I think the fact of the matter is that you left a negative rating over a personal issue, and then handled it poorly when you were called out on it which resulted in you being removed form the DT network. You proceeded to continue to handle being removed from the DT network poorly, which likely resulted in you being excluded from the DT network.

I also don't think the forum is turning a blink eye towards Vod's abusive nature, nor his abusive trust ratings. Vod already has one exclusion and the only person on "level 1" in the DT network, dooglus is anticipated of being removed from DT -- I need to bother to gather the necessary evidence, and make the necessary arguments. BadBear has threatened to exclude Vod from his trust list on at least one occasion, and had (temporally) added one person to his trust list that really should not have been in his trust list who gave Vod a negative rating that was likely an effort to calm Vod down. Tomatocage was not happy with Vod's propensity to dox people that Vod does not like, and I have been told that BadBear does not like this either. I also believe that theymos used to have Vod in his trust list, which is not the case currently.

Technically that is correct. It is what it is.

What's wrong with you; do you have some problems up there? I never said anything about "not liking the answers". There's a difference between posts containing an off-topic question(s) and posts being completely off-topic. I asked that question specifically because I'm unsure of whether we should continue discussing it here and because it is your thread, not because I'm trying to tag you as off-topic or something.

I see none.

No, why would it?

"Free Speech" xkcd incoming?

TECSHARE you seem to be looking for the most complicated solution in any given conflict. Just start a self-moderated thread and you can be as much of an asshole in that thread as you want to. Put Vod on ignore and stop worrying about the "stalking". I doubt you'll convince many (if any) with the methods you're using.

No, there aren't any official rules. That's why that says "unofficial list of rules". You ask off topic questions, I give reasonable answers. You don't like the answers, suddenly I am off topic. Funny how that works. The rules are for me because I say things you don't like, but lets ignore the fact that you yourself are leading this off topic discussion, and lets forget about all the other off topic posts here I reported which go ignored.  If I open a thread for each topic, then I am breaking the rules "spamming threads". What is important is you stop me from bringing these inconsistencies to light, right?

Well, technically there is. We are trying out best to make moderation as consistent as possible (in addition to trying something out behind the scenes ATM). There is the Unofficial list of rules which we tend to use as a reference point (among other things). I'm certain that there aren't many examples of inconsistent/bad moderation because of this. Regardless, I think that this is a tad off-topic in your thread, is it not?

The problem is not different views and opinions. The problem is there is no uniform enforcement of any of the rules around here and not even any official rules posted. This leaves the doors wide open for abuse, nepotism, and other types of selective enforcement. There is no rule of law here at all, just might makes right, and that certainly never goes bad does it?

This is a privately owned forum; theymos makes the rules not the moderators. We enforce them and there is a huge difference there.

Well, I don't mean it in any bad way. The forum is what it is, not a lot has changed over the years.

Bullshit. Whoever thinks this is very wrong. I can't say much about reputable members as I'm not in DT and don't watch the situation (closely), but the staff will certainly "attack you" if you disagree with them. The moderators tend to have different views among themselves in addition to disagreeing with theymos on certain rules and such. There's nothing wrong with that.

Not following you and at this point,think its best we just ignore each other as I do not see anything productive coming from it. Tried to talk to you privately and we both know how that turned out,so lets just put each other on ignore and call it a day. Thanks.

Nice try. Perhaps the common denominator here is not me taking offense (not sure what exactly I should be offended about) but your tabloid posts. So no proof for the mini-drama you're trying to stir up?

If you disagree with me in one post,it does not mean you need to take offense to every post I make in meta.

The comment is not in reference to mods but established accounts leaving trust. The other topic you are referencing to draw my posts together was written off due to me realizing I was not going to get my point across.
So lets be civil shall we and move on.

Perhaps because I have invested five years in building a reputation here, and the entire purpose of these actions was to use that reputation to extort me into following commands that he swears up and down he does not give. If you have no reputation you are just a "scammer" or a "troll", if you have a reputation, then you have something they can take from you. Either way they do what they want and make up the rules as they go along.

I can't tell you how many times reputable members here have told me in private they don't agree with the actions of staff or other highly ranked people here, but they refuse to get involved because it puts them at risk from being attacked and having their own reputation destroyed for doing so. I just happen to be in one of the rare circumstances where a member with an impeccable reputation has been put in this position, as a result, they can't just marginalize me as a scammer, so they have to selectively enforce the rules to stop me from speaking out about this abusive behavior and being heard. This all could be prevented by having a terms of service or officially posted rules, but then the people enforcing the rules might also have to follow them. We can't have that now can we?

Can you produce some proof of such "tagging" (or mods banning) "for disagreeing", or is it again one of those cases where you make tall claims and then run away when asked to substantiate?

The forum certainly has issues but a mod having an opinion isn't one of them.

I see this posed by mods a lot of the time and not to bash but think this is a way of saying "My way or the Highway" and I enjoy the forum.
So those that may feel they are getting a raw deal may read more into that statement then me and it eventually will create a bunch of like minded people that do not differ from one another in thinking,or are scared/worried about saying something different. Can see it already to some extent with newer accounts worried about being tagged negatively by a established account for disagreeing.

Nothing personal either,just think its a comment that stifles discussion and I do realize this thread is getting long in the tooth.
Least you say it in a gentler way,seen another mod thats a little more crusty around the edges saying it in a more hostile manner.

So if the situation is really as bad as you claim, why don't you leave? I mean, if one dislikes this forum I have no idea why they would force themself to stick around.

Get with it. Don't you know I don't have a right to have an opinion any more because Theymos decided he wanted to make an example out of me by having people remove me from their trust THEN creating exclusions just so he could get me off the trust list because he couldn't achieve this voluntarily? If you can't get something done by the rules, just make up new rules! That's the Theymos way. That is also why there are no official rules anywhere because he might have to follow them.

The only thing invalid about my rating was the Bitcoin value, which I removed, but that was not good enough, Theymos demanded full capitulation to his commands. When he didn't get it he created a whole new feature of the trust system just to make sure I was not on any level of the default trust. But "trust isn't moderated" they say! Not if Theymos wants to get involved, then it most certainly is.

Of course lets all forget the fact that the reason that user got that negative rating was for repeatedly harassing me via my sales threads, completely instigated by him, with me never even seeing him before that point. This was all because he didn't like the fact I was selling a gift card at face value. Additionally I would have been glad not to "abuse" the trust if there were posted rules on what trust abuse was defined as, but there aren't. All I had to go by was looking at the examples of people like Vod. And based on that example what I did was perfectly acceptable. Who knew there are one set of rules for me and one set of rules for him. I didn't, and that's why I was used as an example so they could cast blame aside while people like Vod ACTUALLY abuse the trust system repeatedly.

His trust ratings are accurate and his ratings are not speculation. He would often spend the time to create an alt account to attempt to trade with a scammer to see if they are accepting escrow or to see what the scammer says when trying to trade with his alt accounts.


That is true, Vod used to be very good at stopping newbie scammers in the lending section, however that has since changed. He has posted what he believed to be the dox of people in the past over personal issues on at least one occasion, and I believe that he has done this at least one other time as well.

---

---

Techshare was removed from the DT network because he was abusing someone with a fake/invalid negative trust rating. However that does not mean that others have the right to leave fake/invalid trust ratings against him, nor does it mean that others have the right to harass/troll him.