Topic: VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position - page 31. (Read 55257 times)

Yes, possibly... however both of them are notoriously impervious to logic and what's best for the community. When you're in the goold-old-boy network, it's almost impossible to get someone inside to vote themselves or their cronies out (and really, why would you?). The problem is not really VOD, the problem is DefaultTrust. It needs to go away. That will solve much of the problem with trust system (not that the trust system is that great to begin with, but it is what it is). DefaultTrust shouldn't exist, but since it does, those in it should be held to a much higher standard than the average user. When you have someone that abuses DefaultTrust like VOD does, then it's a major problem. When you have people protecting the abusers, you really have no recourse and you're stuck, as Tecshare is, which is unfortunate.

The DefaultTrust keeps a lot of people from commenting on this forum and/or from espousing viewpoints that don't agree with the elite in DefaultTrust for fear of retribution, which makes the community that much poorer due to the terrorizing the people in DefaultTrust do to those they don't agree with.

good point but then shouldnt tecshare be trying to convince badbear or theymos rather than arguing with Vod?  

I'd agree with you if VOD were not in DefaultTrust... but as it is, if you're in DefaultTrust you have a disproportionate amount of power compared to those who aren't. As such, you should be held to a higher standard, which VOD is clearly not. This highlights exactly why DefaultTrust is such a sham and a good-old-boy network of self congratulating and promoting scammers.

I think Vod has the right to leave negative feedback if he deems it appropriate. It is up to tecshare to try to convince him otherwise which seems he has been unable to successfully accomplish.  Kind of hard to persuade someone of anything while you're simultaneously attacking them.

Olive branch number?

Seems like there is a solution.

What will it take?

We aren't going around in circles, YOU are. Just another one of your childish fallacies that you think makes you look clever. It is very easy to pretend to be reconciliatory while you are the only one who has caused harm. EVEN IF I WAS LYING, which I am not, that is not harm, and you can not demonstrate any harm done. People lie about each other all day on these forums. That is not grounds for leaving negative ratings from some one in the position of being on the default trust.

Then stop lying about me?  We're going around in circles and I don't think it's useful to anyone on this forum.

If you ever overcome your personal demons and want to be my friend - send me a PM (you've never been blocked).

You'll need to keep bumping this thread yourself.  Peace brotha.  

The difference is you have no PROOF it is a lie, you just apply a label to it and call it one because it serves your purpose as a minimal justification for your default trust abuse. The statement can not be proven one way or the other, so by definition you have no ability to define it as a lie BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF IT IS NOT TRUE.

I on the other hand DO have proof it is true. You repeatedly abuse the default trust system, and there you are, still on the default trust, when many many others were removed for singe instances of acts you do once a week.

Vod, you do a damned fine job of getting yourself into drama constantly, I don't need to lie to expose that. I love how you are able to do the mental gymnastics that make you think that the nepotism that allows you to stay on the default trust list is some how proof it is my fault and not proof that you are in fact protected by the staff and other high ranking trust members. You are quite good at lying to yourself.

Give the pretender act a rest Dr. Phil. You are the perpetrator here, just like Armis was, and I will do my best to make sure everyone knows you are a perpetrator and not a protector like you would love everyone to believe. The only way this will ever be resolved is with you removing your abusive rating on my trust completely or with you removed from the default trust.

I disagree with that.

If my opinion were that you were female, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?

It would be damaging to your reputation on a misogynistic website, wouldn't it?

Here, on this anonymous irreversible currency forum - credibility is everything.  When you tells lies that undermine my credibility, that damages my reputation.

I guess what your parents and education system failed to teach you is that your actions have consequences. 


I'm sure you're excited to actually expose abusive behavior one day!  The anticipation you must feel when you login to the website each day to see if I have met your expectations must be breathtaking.  The crash after seeing I haven't must be depressing.  So you make up these lies.

I don't think you're a bad guy.  I just think you are extremely butt hurt for feeling you were kicked out of default trust because of your interactions with a scammer.  I'm having the same interactions now with the same scammer but I'm still here, so I hope one day you'll understand the problem may be you.  

Because you disagree with my opinions does not make them lies. Just because other people disagree with me does not make me a liar. You do not have a right to tell me what I can and can not say on this forum and use your position on the default trust as a method of extorting compliance with your demands, and I will NOT submit to your coercion, ever. Furthermore, you can not prove that my statements are false, therefore your claims of lies are only based on hearsay or opinions. Why is it you get to have opinions, but when I have opinions, suddenly they aren't opinions, but lies, and must be punished with disproportionate amounts of authority being abused? Differing opinions is not a lie, no matter how offensive it is to your ego. Furthermore no damage has been done to you regardless of how much you want to pretend you are a victim here and not the perpetrator. I look forward to you denying reality and me continuing to expose your abusive behavior at any opportunity.

I do want to be friends.  

First step is for you to admit/understand you are lying about me - denial is not healthy.  I can't count how many people that have told you I'm not protected by staff nor am I part of an inner circle.  Your continued stating that I am in a lie - even if you can't see it.

Second step is to stop lying about me.  You'll be surprised that this will be the easy step.  Good luck!  

Now Vod says he wants to be friends. That's cute. Its also cute that he never has any of his own words to say and always just repeats my statements back to me like a 4 year old or a parrot and then thinks it is witty.  I can demonstrate very clearly how you have harmed me, simply look at my trust ratings. You on the other hand are making a claim that I lied (you can't prove it is a lie) about you (it was more about the trust system), and that this damaged you some how (you claim Badbear removing you from his trust is damage, and some how I am responsible for Badbear's actions).

You harmed my reputation because my criticism of your behavior offended you. I never lied, and I seriously doubt I caused you any harm (other than maybe your ego). Your reaction is not only disproportionate but not even a valid use of the trust system from a position of some one on the default trust list.

Yet here you are claiming to want to be my friend and demanding I take action (stop criticizing you). You are free to criticize me as much as I am to criticize you, however the trust system is not the venue for you to fight your personal grudges over differing opinions (what you call lies). We are never going to be friends, because I don't consider people like you friends to anyone. The best you can ever be is some one whom I have no interest in observing, just like you were before you abused the default trust to damage my reputation to settle your personal disagreements.

Looks like you got way too much spare time on your hands.

lol Excellent work!  

You could also make one of me jacking off to collateral.  I love collateral!

P.S.  Thx for giving me a big black dick!   

Of course I don't stand behind my words. All I've been doing from this account is saying fuck you and paying people to draw you as hitler.

The images speak for themselves.

https://imgur.com/a/QnaVI -nsfw

People who are anonymous are anonymous because they don't want to be identified.
People don't want to be identified because they don't stand behind their words.

I remember that each time I read something from you.  

Yeah he has a bitcoin address for donations but apparently has no idea what bitcointalk even is.

By the way Vod, fuck you.

lol that was funny!

Even the guy who records whatever you put in front of him thought it was nonsense!   

A request for tomatocage

This quote from January when Vod did this to me the first time sums up the situation pretty well.

He claims:
1. I am lying about him ("lies" which he has trouble identifying, and can't seem to demonstrate as false)
2. Those alleged lies resulted in harm (again, he can not demonstrate any harm I have caused him)

Therefore his only recourse was to mark me as a scammmer in direct contradiction of the directions clearly stated when leaving trust? Theymos has already established "lying" about someone is not a suitable reason to leave a trust rating for someone who occupies the default trust:

Why is it that Vod is not also subject to these same standards held for every one else? Why is it that he has already done this once, and did it AGAIN, yet people are still making excuses for him?