Topic: VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position - page 41. (Read 55257 times)

Default trust list members are held to rigorously high standards and promptly removed if they abuse their position.

Unless their name is Vod.

/thread

Not going anywhere

Yet another ad hominem attack. This incident has nothing to do with me, and hence any response to do with me is completely irrelevant and inappropriate.

So, what is one "lie" that TECSHARE has ever told about you? We're still waiting.

Oh well than, thank you. I don't see his feedback, so wasn't aware.

Edit:
Well I guess that's better than it was.

You haven't got one anymore. He changed it to neutral.

You still seem to have me blocked, So I am unable to PM you. But I'm somewhat tired of this and would like to come to an agreement. I do not deserve a Scammer tag, no matter how it is looked at, and would like to fix that. I removed any comment toward you this morning.

haha...

This from a person that stole thousands of bitcoins from hundreds of people.

Your words mean nothing to me scammer - go away.   

You have yet again accused that TECSHARE "lied" about you, despite never pointing to a single lie that he has made about you. You have been asked by multiple people to elaborate on what exactly are the "lies" that TECSHARE is "spreading" about you.

You somehow have this complex that anyone who thinks you don't deserve to be on defaulttrust is lying about you, or is a hacked account. Based on theymos' previous precendent, you absolutely and unquestionably do not deserve to be on defaulttrust no matter how many scammers you neg rep.

Do you think that statement I have made about you is a "lie"? Is that what qualifies as a "lie?"

Again, we're all waiting for you to give a single lie that TECSHARE has told about you. Since this forum has a mission of free speech, everyone can (i) criticize your actions, and (ii) suggest that you be removed from DefaultTrust, and everyone can continue to criticize you over an extended period of time (when not disruptive). That's not lying.

Here is the issue:


Here is the guidance for the negative feedback:


To date, Vod has not backed any of his 'he lied about me' accusations, and his only other reason was because he suspected an account was hacked -- without evidence, just because that account left him a negative feedback.

I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that Vod used his DefaultTrust position to punish speech.

I agree with you BadBear - I made the trust neutral.  I would be willing to remove it altogether but TECSHARE would need to stop spreading his lies about me.  I'm not protected by anyone on this forum and I am given no special treatment.   

People in the default trust list have to watch their negative trust more closely. 

Although you skipped over a few details, such as staff also punitively adding me as excluded trust 2x over, negating trust listings I earned (not granted like default trust), this is largely true. Thank you for your comment.

Full narrative of the incident: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/staff-hypocrisy-and-selective-enforcement-of-rules-853522

~Off-topic~

BCX, I've mentioned before that I appreciate some of the work you do in the Alt section. But in this instance, you are ill-informed on the subject of Techshare and his removal from Depth Level 2 of the Trust list. I need to make it clear that I don't know Techshare, and I have never conducted any business with him before. And as the admins can attest, I am not an alt of anyone

Techshare started a sales thread. Another member began posting persistently in the thread, questioning his price and accusing him of marking it up (my memory is a bit hazy on the details). After a long back and forth, Techshare left him a negative rating for trolling and unwisely added 1BTC as the risked amount. Perhaps in his mind (just speculating), the amount is from lost sales - I don't know. But that error in judgement led to a prolonged meta argument resulting in Techshare amending his feedback and removing the risked amount. Nevertheless, two DefaultTrust members removed him from their trust list, which consequently, took him off Level 2.

~On topic~

If you've read some of Techshare's stuff in the Politics section, you would understand what a principled person he is. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but it is nonetheless illuminating.

I've nothing against Vod personally. In fact, he removed a neg rating against a friend of mine after I messaged him. However, I think Vod was annoyed that Techshare used him as a point of argument against the Trust system, leading to the negative rating. Techshare was making a point, and Vod was his point. Hence the negative feedback, which I personally think is unwarranted.

The trust system needs to be strictly used for trading and trust related activities and never for personal opinions. Although correct in some cases, it is clearly misused more often. With some exceptions like people who are actively stopping scammers or participating in activities that require a lot of trust, there shouldn't be any reason to negatively impact a persons ability to trade based on a personal feud with them that has nothing to do with trust. If there's sufficient evidence in any case that the person may be a scammer or scamming, then by all means leave them negative feedback. If you are angry at someone or have conflicting opinions, using your feedback weight to attack or punish a member and affect their trading ability isn't an appropriate decision. I'm conflicted about Neutral ratings as well as they show up on the trusted feedback for some members, and although it doesn't affect your trust rating, it may affect your ability to conduct trades. When in reality the rating has nothing to do with your level of trust or ability to trade. Users should always be willing to remove their feedback at a later date if the person has shown a reform in character in situations where it's appropriate. Aside from all the drama, arguments, and conflicts that most of the time incorporate the trust system, it is actually a great way to monitor and gauge a persons trust level as long as it's used appropriately.

You had no problem calling me out for removal without knowing the entire situation, what is different now? Now I am responsible for other people creating threads calling him out on his abuse? What does that have to do with anything? Since VOD is on your trust list, isn't it your RESPONSIBILITY to keep up with accusations made against him since you effectively are one of 3 to grant him this power?

Well. Sadly we are actually looking for some sort of answer from the Admin staff.

Is trust a free for all. Anything goes.
Or is it for Scammers or potential scammers to be flagged (the neutral portion).
And when a trusted member post's lies or half truth's, what can be done about it?

Personally I feel a neutral may be more appropriate, but tbh I haven't really kept up with all this so I don't have a strong opinion about it. Too much childish bickering over too many threads (on all sides). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I don't have the time to review all internet flame wars, but I have only had good interactions with TECSHARE. If his allegations about trust are true, I support his recommended changes to this default trust list.

This is the most reasonable comment I found:

When you leave someone a negative rating claiming "X", "X" should be true.

Vod has used the rational that 'perhaps my account has been hacked' to justify leaving me negative feedback.

If that's not a good reason to remove him from default trust, I don't know what is.

You could say that anyone's account has 'possibly been hacked.'

The entire reason he left me negative trust was because of my efforts to point out that his repeated abuses of the default trust are allowed, while people such as myself are immediately banished, demonstrating that in fact staff DO give him preferential treatment (something he claims is a lie), so in fact it is quite relevant.


This isn't irony, this is VOD attempting to prove that he has special privileges to abuse the trust system by getting away with exactly what staff CLAIMED I was guilty of. I tried to explain multiple times that no one ever bothered writing down or explaining to me the responsibilities that come along with being placed on the default trust, I was just on it one day. I erroneously assumed that like every other user here, we were free to use our feedback in any way we deemed necessary and the community itself would balance abuse by untrusting or removing abusers, and that trust was completely unmoderated by staff.

Because these rules were unspoken and unwritten, I only had the example of users such as VOD to demonstrate what is acceptable use of the trust system in practice. In short he has been allowed to abuse the trust for some time according to the rules I have been made aware of AFTER my removal from the default trust, and this absent of any other information made his actions appear to be valid forms of trust use. I even told him so in my trust removal thread. Additionally VOD even commented on the issue and said "I would have reacted the same way.", indicating very clearly he did not agree it was necessarily an abuse of the trust. Yet I was removed from default trust for a SINGLE COMPLAINT left in response to the user Armis harassing me, and that is exactly what my rating stated.

At no point was I ever attempting to silence Armis, only get him to remove his slanderous posts from my sales threads where he was harming my ability to sell by unjustly making users paranoid about my trustworthiness in trading. Armis didn't feel that I should be selling a gift card at face value, sounds like he really exposed me! Furthermore, if his only goal was to point out some supposed wrongdoing I was up to, why did he stick around to make insults? Armis did nothing but escalate the situation at every step, even after I offered him a mutually beneficial option to restore his trust after he removed his slander from my sales threads. His only intent was to harass me and hinder my ability to trade. If he had made his posts in the scam accusation area, meta, or if the admins had responded to my reports, the trust rating would never have been used.

That was not judged to be an acceptable use of trust by the staff, yet here VOD is again using the trust in exactly such a way and he is still not having any repercussions. The only difference between the two ratings is I was honest about why I left my rating for Armis, VOD is attempting to place a veil of legitimacy over his by claiming I lied about him (and therefore lying himself).

I was already punished for my supposed trust abuse. Not only was I removed from the default trust, I got to be the very first test case for trust exclusions, which were applied to me 2x by high ranking members in the trust effectively NEGATING TRUST I ACTUALLY EARNED from others. There is NO WAY I can ever recover my trust from this because I can never be higher ranked than those users no matter how many successful transactions I do or who trusts me in the future. What gives you the right to negate trust I earned. You removed me from the default trust, what is the punitive punishment for? Why should those punishments apply to me for a single incident, but not to VOD for his repeated flagrant disregard for default trust rating standards? Why is it that these rules are for some people but not for others?




I already made it clear I do not give a shit about being on the default trust list, it is the REASON why I was removed that is the issue, as well as the selective enforcement of those rules. If I really wanted to get back on the default trust (which I am advocating the abolition of completely btw), this is clearly not the way to do it. I repeat, the default trust is a FLAWED SYSTEM, and I want to have no part in in. I do however find it telling that you are arguing against someone advocating the abolition of the default trust, which would effectively make all those accounts you are trying to peddle nearly worthless.



The fact that the staff and or people who put him on their trust list did not react in a consistent way is exactly my point. In spite of stacks of valid accusations against him for trust abuse, nothing is done. People on the default trust list are not supposed to be leaving negative trust based on opinions, and myself as well as others were removed for MUCH less while he flagrantly abuses the system to silence people pointing out he abuses the system. This is not a valid use of default trust ratings according to the standards previously enforced directly by staff.

But lies and being a hot head is not what the system is for!

id like to know this too

if vod cant quote or show us evidence i think vod spew out "lies" too

IMO every neg trust should put in evidence in reference , not just based on feelings

I dont trust this guys dont deal with him

sometimes things like this stop scam attempt

but sometimes i notices this is just based on pure feelings of individuals